Dismissed

Sanjeevi v. Chowta v Sujnaneshwari Shetty

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2024WP/34806/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant No.1 sought certiorari against rejection of an application under Sections 132 and 133 KLR Act to stay a title-and-injunction suit pending a Form No.7 occupancy claim before the Land Tribunal. The court held petitioners were neither tenants nor Form No.7 claimants, found the cited Apex Court case inapplicable, and dismissed the writ.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ dismissed, impugned order confirmed, trial court directed to expedite O.S. proceedings with parties' cooperation.

Sanjeevi v Chowta Vs Sujnaneshwari Shetty — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5459 WP No. 34806 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 34806 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SANJEEVI V CHOWTA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

¶9

1(A) VIJAYA CHOWTA, 73 YEARS, S/O. T. KESHAVA CHOWTA,

¶10

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: high court of karnataka

¶11

1(B) NANDAKISHA CHOWTA, 40 YEARS,

¶12

1(C) NANDAPRAKASH CHOWTA, 39 YEARS,

¶13

1(D) NANDANISHA CHOWTA, 38 YEARS,

¶14

1(B) TO (C) ARE THE CHILDREN OF VIJAYA CHOWTA AND SANJEEVI V. CHOWTA R/O NO.33, SHIROOR VILLAGE, POST: MUDDUMANE - 576 201, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI: VYASA RAO .K.S., ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED LRS OF P1 (I.E., P1(A TO D) IN I.A.1/22 TO 3/22)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SUJNANESHWARI SHETTY, 45 YEARS, D/O. K. KARUNAKARA SHETTY, R/O. HEBBADI HOUSE, HEGGUNJE VILLAGE,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:5459 WP No. 34806 of 2017

¶21

PO: MANDARTHI - 576 201 UDUPI TALUK.

¶22

MAHABALA SHETTY 73 YEARS,

¶23

RAMESH SHETTY, 58 YEARS,

¶24

RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE SONS OF LATE ANANTHA SHETTY, R/O. THENKABETTU, R/O. NO.33, SHIROOR VILLAGE, POST: MUDDUMANE - 576 201, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶25

ALLAN PETER S/O. PAUL JOHN PETER, R/O. KODI ROAD, POST: HANGLUR, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI: RAMESH .K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2/06 - D/W - V/O DT.9/8/17 AS PER NEW RANKING R2 TO 4 D/W V/O DT.7/4/22 - R2 & R3 DELETED AS PER NEW RANKING)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEX-A DTD.5.8.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA ON I.A.NO.11 IN O.S.NO.46/2012 AND ALLOW I.A.NO.11 AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.,

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5459 WP No. 34806 of 2017

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.46/2012 on the file of the learned Principal I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for brevity), is seeking grant of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 05.08.2016, rejecting I.A.No.11 filed under Sections 132 and 133 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLR Act' for brevity), seeking to stay the further proceedings in the suit as the issue is pending before the Land Tribunal.

¶33

Heard Sri.Vyasa Rao.K.S., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Ramesh.K.S., learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the materials on record.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 as plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.46/2012 seeking declaration of her title based on a registered sale deed dated 24.12.1974 and for permanent injunction. Defendant No.1 filed her written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff and also sought for counter claim i.e.,

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:5459 WP No. 34806 of 2017

¶37

cancellation of the sale deed dated 24.12.1974, as the same is hit by undue influence and coercion.

¶38

Learned counsel submitted that one Anantha Shetty, father of defendant Nos.4 and 5 had filed Form No.7 seeking occupancy right in respect of the suit property. Initially occupancy right was granted in his favour. But, later same was set aside and the matter is still pending for consideration before the Land Tribunal at Udupi. Under such circumstances, Sections 132 and 133 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to consider the contentions taken before the Court. Hence, application I.A.No.11 was filed by defendant No.1. The trial Court without considering the rival contentions of the parties, proceeded to reject the application. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶39

Learned counsel contended that even though the Land Tribunal is not formed yet, the bar under Sections 132 and 133 do not empower the Civil Court to proceed with considering the rival contentions of the parties. The trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application solely on the ground that

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:5459 WP No. 34806 of 2017

¶42

defendant Nos.4 and 5 have not filed an application to stay further proceedings.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 'Ravindra Reddy and others Vs.H.Ramaiah Reddy and others' 1 in support of his contention that under Sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to entertain the suit. Ignoring this fact, the trial Court proceded to pass the impugned order.

¶44

Learned counsel further submitted that since

¶45

original defendant No.1 died, his legal representatives were brought on record as the petitioners in this case. They are defendant Nos.2 and 3 before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and further proceedings in O.S.No.46/2012 is to be stayed till the

¶46

decision by the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶47

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.1 who is the plaintiff before the trial Court opposing the petition

¶48

1 2010 (3) SCC 214

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:5459 WP No. 34806 of 2017

¶51

submitted that petitioners are not having any right, title or interest over the schedule properties. Defendant No.1 had admittedly executed the settlement deed settling the property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 under two registered settlement deeds. It is also not in dispute that defendant No.1 had executed registered deed dated 24.12.1974 selling the property in favour of the plaintiff. Till today, the said sale deed is not challenged either by the defendant No.1 or by any other person claiming under him. Under such circumstances, defendant Nos.1 to 3 are not having any right, title or interest over the properties in question.

¶52

Learned counsel contended that according to the petitioners, defendant Nos.4 and 5 have filed Form No.7 and were claiming the occupancy right in respect of the schedule property. But defendant No.4 and 5 have never contested the suit. They have also not chosen to appear before this Court to have their say in the petition. They have also not filed any application under Sections 132 and 133 of the KLR Act seeking stay of further proceedings. Such right is not available to the petitioners as they are not the tenants who have filed Form

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:5459 WP No. 34806 of 2017

¶55

No.7 before the tribunal. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application. It does not calls for any interference.

¶56

Leaned counsel submits that the suit OS.46/2012 pending before the trial Court is now transferred and pending on the file of the learned First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Udupi and re numbered as OS.611/2020. Since the original suit was filed in the year 2012, a direction may be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the same expeditiously. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶57

The admitted facts are that defendant No.1 had executed two registered settlement deeds settling the properties in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are the petitioners herein. It is also admitted that defendant No.1 executed the registered sale deed in respect of the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 24.12.1974. It is the contention of the petitioners that defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the tenants in the agricultural land and they have filed Form No.7 for grant of occupancy right and the same is pending consideration before the land tribunal, Udupi. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the tenants nor they

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:5459 WP No. 34806 of 2017

¶60

have filed Form No.7 seeking occupancy right. What is the right of the petitioners to contest the suit is not made clear. What is the right of the petitioners to file and maintain such an application under Sections 132 and 133 of the KLR Act is also not high lighted. Admittedly, defendant Nos.4 and 5 are not contesting the suit nor they have appeared before this Court either to support the petition or to oppose it. Moreover admittedly the land tribunal at Udupi is not yet constituted and is not functioning. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in 'Ravindra Reddy and others Vs. H.Ramaiah Reddy and others' the same is not applicable to the facts of the case.

¶61

I have gone through the impugned order passed by the trial Court. It has taken into consideration all these facts and circumstances and rightly dismissed the application. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

¶62

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. Writ petition dismissed .

¶65

ii. The order dated 05.08.2016, rejecting I.A.No.11 filed under Sections 132 and 133 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act is confirmed.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:5459 WP No. 34806 of 2017

¶68

iii. Since the suit is of the year 2012, the trial Court is directed to expedite the matter with the co operation of both the parties to the suit.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sanjeevi v. Chowta v Sujnaneshwari Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeevi v. Chowta v Sujnaneshwari Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gracy Juliet Rodrigues Vs Janet Marie Barbose

m.s bheemanna Vs smt. nagamma

Sri Kotrappa Vs Sri Shankarappa

Manjula Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Komala Prasanna Vs Smt. K. Yashodamma

Smt. Yashodamma Vs Smt. Sarojamma