Dismissed

Smt Nalini K Urs v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024MFA/190/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal challenging the dismissal of an application for interim injunction. The Trial Court rejected the injunction relying on a Land Tribunal order granting occupancy rights to defendants. The High Court held that Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act bars the Civil Court from going into the correctness of the Land Tribunal's order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Nalini K Urs Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11127 MFA No. 190 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NALINI K URS WIFE OF LATE B.P. KRISHNE URS AND DAUGHTER OF LATE M. MALLARAJ URS AGED 84 YEARS NO.42/2, RAMESHWARA NIVAS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 8^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560070.

¶9

SRI. ESHWAR K SON OF SMT. NALINI K URS AGED 45 YEARS NO.42/2, RAMESHWARA NIVAS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 8^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560070.

¶10

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. VASANTH KUMAR SON OF LATE M. MALLARAJE URS AGED 75 YEARS, NO.1047, 6^TH CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 1^ST STAGE BENGALURU-560050.

¶12

SMT. TRIPURA WIFE OF LATE RAJINIKANTH AGED 63 YEARS, NO.556, SATYAMARGA, 2^ND STAGE, SIDDHARTHANAGAR, MYSURU-570011

¶13

SMT. SUSHMA DAUGHTER OF LATE M. RAJINIKANTH AGED 42 YEARS NO.76, KAVERI ROAD, 1^ST STAGE,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11127 MFA No. 190 of 2024

¶15

GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560079.

¶16

SMT. KUSUM DAUGHTER OF M. RAJINIKANTH AGED 39 YEARS, A7, 1102, ELITA PROMENADE APARTMENT, 18^TH MAIN ROAD, J.P. NAGAR 7^TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560078

¶17

SRI. SHREYAS SON OF M. RAJINIKANTH AGED 35 YEARS, NO.556, SATYAMARGA, 24^TH STAGE, SIDDHARTHANAGAR, MYSURU-570011

¶18

SMT. M.C. UMADEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE CHANNARAJ URS AND GRAND DAUGHTER LATE M. MALLARAJ URS AGED 65 YEARS, NO.200, 2^ND MAIN, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570012

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. G.K. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU.

¶24

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB-DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER , MYSURU.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11127 MFA No. 190 of 2024

¶26

THE TAHASILDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR AT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, MYSURU REPRESENTED BY TAHASILDAR

¶27

THE LAND TRIBUNAL OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR AT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA MYSURU REPRESENTED BY TAHASILDAR

¶28

SRI. VENKATESH SON OF CHIKKA MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED 52 YEARS, HARAGADDE POST, HARAGADDE, JIGINI, BENGALURU-560105

¶29

SRI. NAGARAJU SON OF CHIKKA DODDACHARI, AGED 55 YEARS, HENNAKKI, HENNAGAR POST, HENNAKKI, JIGANI, ANEKAL, BENGALURU -570105 KARNATAKA

¶30

SMT. M.B. SHANTHA DAUGHTER OF LATE M. BASAVARAJ URS AGED 77 YEARS NO.589/3, 10^TH CROSS, 7^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560082

¶31

M.B. ANAND KUMAR SON OF LATE M. BASAVARAJ URS AGED 75 YEARS, NO.539, 16A CROSS, 3^RD A MAIN ROAD, HSR LAYOUT, 6^TH SECTOR, BENGALURU-560102

¶32

SMT. M.B. JAYASHREE DAUGHTER OF LATE M. BASAVARAJ URS AGED 72 YEARS NO.1, VINAYAMARGA,

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11127 MFA No. 190 of 2024

¶34

SIDDHARTHANAGARA,

¶35

MYSURU.

¶36

SMT. M.B. MEERA DAUGHTER OF LATE M. BASAVARAJ URS AGED 70 YEARS, NO.131, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 4^TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011

¶37

STM. SHASHIREKHA DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE M. BASAVARAJ URS, AGED 62 YEARS NO.1598, "SRINIVASA", B CROSS, VISHWAMANAVA DOUBLE ROAD, E AND F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU -570023

¶38

SRI. M.B. SRIDHAR SON OF LATE M. BASAVARAJ URS, AGED 67 YEARS NO.1598, "SRINIVASA", B CROSS, VISHWAMANAVA DOUBLE ROAD, E AND F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU -570023

¶39

SRI. M.B. SURESH SON OF LATE M. BASAVARAJ URS, AGED 65 YEARS NO.1598, "SRINIVASA", B CROSS, VISHWAMANAVA DOUBLE ROAD, E AND F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU -570023

¶40

SMT. RAJMATHI WIFE OF LATE M. KANTHARAJ URS AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE M. MALLARAJ URS AGED 77 YEARS NO.135, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU -570020

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11127 MFA No. 190 of 2024

¶42

SRI. HARISH SON OF LATE M. KANTHARAJ URS AGED 56 YEARS NO.135, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU -570020

¶43

SMT. VIJAYASHREE DAUGHTER OF LATE M. KANTHARAJ URS AGED 54 YEARS NO.135, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU -570020

¶44

SMT. SUMITHRA DAUGHTER OF LATE M KANTHARAJ URS AGED 50 YEARS NO.135, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU -570020

¶45

SMT. M. SUJAYA DAUGHTER OF LATE M. KANTHARAJ URS AGED 88 YEARS NO.56, SHIVASANNIDHI, 29^TH MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU- 560068

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

(VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2024, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 (MOA NOT FILED))

¶48

THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.1322/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶49

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11127 MFA No. 190 of 2024

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1322/2021 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') have filed this appeal challenging an order dated 12.12.2023 by which, an application filed by them for interim injunction to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 7 from interfering with their possession in the suit schedule properties, was rejected.

¶53

The suit in O.S.No.1322/2021 was filed for the

¶54

following reliefs:-

¶55

(a) for a declaration that plaintiffs and defendants 8 to 19 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property in possession and enjoyment of the same;

¶56

(b) for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7, their officers, servants, henchmen or any other person acting under them from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiffs and defendants 8 to 19 in relation to the suit schedule property;

¶57

(c) for a further declaration that the order dated 15/01/1982 passed in No.KLRM 3968/76-77 is null, void, ultra vires and unenforceable and non est and a nullity in the eye of law and does not bind the Plaintiffs and defendants 8 to 19;

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11127 MFA No. 190 of 2024

¶59

(d) for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 to 4 to remove/delete the names of the late Chikka Doddachari son of Tagadachari and Chikkamuniswamppa son of Annaiahappa from the revenue records/RTC;

¶60

The suit was filed in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.148 situate at Kalasthavadi village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, measuring 7 acres 25 guntas. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was owned and possessed by late Amaldar M. Mallaraje Urs, who purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated 29.06.1938 from one Sheshagiri Rao Purnaiah. They claimed that after his death, the plaintiffs and their predecessors succeeded to the property and were in possession. They claimed that during July 2021, the Revenue Inspector approached the plaintiffs and informed him to produce the documents relating to the suit property to the Office of Tahsildar. The plaintiffs claimed that they were bewildered as to why they were informed orally to produce the documents and thereafter, they found that the defendants had concocted an order of Land Tribunal dated 15.01.1982, in terms of which, the suit property was allegedly granted to the predecessor of the defendant Nos.6 and 7. The plaintiffs contended that after

¶61

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:11127 MFA No. 190 of 2024

¶62

perusing the records of the Land Tribunal, they found that they were represented before the Tribunal by a stranger to the family and that he had consented for grant of occupancy rights. They contended that neither Amaldar M. Mallaraje Urs nor any other member of the family were notified of the proceedings and therefore, the order passed by the Land Tribunal and consequent Form No.10 issued by the Tahsildar were of no consequence, as the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant Nos.6 and 7 taking advantage of the order of the Land Tribunal, attempted to interfere with their possession in the suit property and therefore, the plaintiffs were advised to file a suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶63

Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for an interim order of injunction to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 7 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

¶64

The suit as well as the application filed for interim

¶65

injunction was contested by the defendant Nos.6 and 7, who

¶66

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:11127 MFA No. 190 of 2024

¶67

claimed that their predecessors were the tenants in a portion of the suit property and that the application was filed by their predecessors before the Land Tribunal claiming occupancy rights. They contended that the Land Tribunal after considering the material on record passed an order dated 15.01.1982 granting occupancy rights in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of predecessors of the defendant Nos.6 and 7. They claimed that Form No.10 was thereafter issued and therefore, they were in possession of the suit property.

¶68

The Trial Court after considering the contentions urged, rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs for interim injunction as the order of the Land Tribunal, which was placed on record indicated that the predecessors of the defendant Nos.6 and 7 were granted the land in question. Therefore, in the face of such an order of grant, the Trial Court felt that the plaintiffs could not claim that they were in possession of the suit property. It also held that it did not have the power to look into the correctness of the order of grant passed by the Land Tribunal. Further more, it held that though the plaintiffs claimed that after the death of their grandfather, they took possession of the suit property, they did not disclose when their

¶69

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:11127 MFA No. 190 of 2024

¶70

grandfather died and when they came into possession of the suit property. It also held that the plaintiffs did not produce any document to establish that they were in possession of the suit property and that they were exercising the rights of ownership of the suit property in any manner whatsoever.

¶71

Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by the plaintiffs.

¶72

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that there are so many circumstances, which indicated that order of the grant dated 15.01.1982 was fraudulent, in as much as the application seeking for grant of occupancy rights was itself filed on Christmas day. He submitted that the order granting occupancy rights was passed on 15.01.1982, which allegedly was a State Holiday. He further submits that none of the family members of the plaintiffs were served with the notice of the proceedings by the Land Tribunal and therefore, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is void ab initio . He further submitted that notwithstanding the order passed by the Land Tribunal, the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have granted an order

¶73

11 -

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:11127 MFA No. 190 of 2024

¶75

of injunction so as to protect the possession of the plaintiffs and also to maintain the status quo of the suit property until disposal of the suit.

¶76

A perusal of the reliefs sought for in the suit, makes it clear that the suit was filed challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 15.01.1982. In view of the express bar contained in Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the Civil Court could not have gone into the correctness of the order of the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the plaintiffs were barking a wrong tree by filing the suit in the Civil Court challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal. They ought to have challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal in the manner known to law, which certainly was not by filing a suit before the Civil Court. Even otherwise, in the face of the order passed by the Land Tribunal and the Form No.10 issued by the Tahsildar in respect of the suit property, the plaintiffs could not contend that they were in possession of the suit property and that they were cultivating it. Therefore, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in refusing to grant an order of interim injunction.

¶77

12 -

¶78

NC: 2024:KHC:11127 MFA No. 190 of 2024

¶79

Hence, this appeal lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶80

It is however, open for the plaintiffs to file

¶81

appropriate proceedings before this Court to challenge the order of the Land Tribunal.

¶82

In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending I.As., if

¶83

any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Smt Nalini K Urs v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Nalini K Urs v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B C Muralidhara Vs Smt C S Pushpavathamma

Shri. T. Nagappa Vs Shri. Seenappa

M/S. Icici Bank Limited Vs Jeetendra Kumar

M/S. Deepica Residency Welfare Association of Residents (Dwar) Vs M/S. Gruha Deepica Builders

Mr Nizamuddin Vs Smt Waheeda Begum

Sri B N Changalarayareddy Vs Smt Lingamma