Dismissed¶¶77

Sri Thimmaiah v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2025RFA/1310/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (DB: Anu Sivaraman & Vijaykumar A. Patil JJ.), 01-12-2025, R.F.A. No.1310/2025 (DEC/INJ): dismissal of appeal against rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w S.151 CPC. Suit for declaration of title by adverse possession, declaration and permanent injunction over land acquired under Land Acquisition Act 1894 for BWSSB (acquisition 1970; SLAO award 04.09.1976; enhancement in LAC No.318/1997) held barred: acquired land vests in State free of encumbrances; post-acquisition occupier is a trespasser, not an adverse possessor; civil-court jurisdiction excluded (Brijesh Reddy and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy relied on). Appeal dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The point framed for consideration is answered in the negative: the impugned order of the Trial Court does not call for interference. ¶¶52

Sri Thimmaiah Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of the Trial Court calls for any interference?

¶¶51

Court's answer

The point framed for consideration is answered in the negative: the impugned order of the Trial Court does not call for interference.

¶¶52

Ratio / Principle

The suit schedule property already stands vested with the State Government by the acquisition process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the Trial Court rightly recorded that the suit is not maintainable and is barred under the Act.

¶¶63

Key takeaways

The Trial Court was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.4 filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC; the contention that the issue of possession had to be gone into at trial has no merit, as the respondent-Authorities took possession long back and the land is vested with them.ratio¶¶70
The appellants' alleged possession over the land after acquisition is that of trespassers, not possessors whose occupancy supports an adverse possession claim; consequently the suit for adverse possession, declaration of title and injunction is not maintainable in view of the vesting of the land with the State free from all encumbrances.ratio¶¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RFA (DEC/INJ) under S.96 CPC by the legal representatives of late Thimmaiah against rejection of their plaint (O.S.No.7852/2017, I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-2)) under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w S.151 CPC as barred by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The suit land (Sy.No.15/6B, re-numbered Sy.Nos.367 and 361, Belur Nagasandra Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk) was acquired for BWSSB — proceedings commenced 1970, SLAO award 04.09.1976, compensation enhanced in LAC No.318/1997 — yet the plaintiffs, claiming continued residence and possession, sought declaration of title by adverse possession, declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. Held, dismissing the appeal: (i) on acquisition the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances; the appellants' post-acquisition occupation is that of trespassers and cannot sustain a claim of adverse possession; (ii) the plaint disclosed no date from which adverse possession ran; (iii) keeping in mind the enunciation in Commissioner, BDA v. Brijesh Reddy (AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 60) and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal ((2017) 13 SCC 174) — the Act being a complete code, civil-court cognizance of matters arising under it being barred by necessary implication — the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.4. No order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB R.F.A. No.1310/2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1310/2025 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. THIMMAIAH S/O HANUMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S.

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶11

SRI. T. SRINIVAS S/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶12

SRI. T. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶13

SRI. T. SHANKAR S/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶14

SRI. T. HANUMAPPA S/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶15

SMT. T. BHAGYA D/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶16

SMT. T. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB R.F.A. No.1310/2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

T. SUDHA S/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶20

ALL ARE R/AT. OLD NO.54 NEW NO.367, HAL POST VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560087.

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADV.,)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE, BWSSB BUILDING K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶25

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER STT COLACHE NEERU AND CHARANDI B.C. CHALLAGHATTA, YAMANUR POST BENGALURU - 560039.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. SHRINIVAS B.S. ADV., FOR C/R2 & R1)

¶28

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.7852/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-2). SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-2) IN O.S.NO.7852/2017 ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY RESTORING THE SUIT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶29

THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 26.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB R.F.A. No.1310/2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶33

CAV JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶35

This regular second appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'), challenging the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in O.S.No.7852/2017 by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-2).

¶36

The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the appellants filed a suit in O.S.No.7852/2017 for the reliefs of declaration, adverse possession and permanent injunction. The respondents filed a written statement denying the assertions of possession and other averments made in the plaint. The Trial Court framed the issues. The appellants examined PW-1 and the said witness was cross-examined. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application in I.A.No.4 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC seeking for rejection of the plaint on the ground

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB R.F.A. No.1310/2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

that the same is barred under law. The appellants opposed the application. The Trial Court, under the impugned order allowed I.A.No.4, rejected the plaint as it is barred under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

¶40

Sri.H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing I.A.No.4 without appreciating the fact that the appellants are in possession and enjoyment of the property and the said issue is required to be gone into during the trial. It is submitted that though the land is acquired in the year 1970, possession was never taken from the appellants and the appellants' family is residing in the suit schedule property. Hence, the reliefs of adverse possession, declaration and permanent injunction were sought in the suit and these issues are required to be adjudicated in the trial. However, the Trial Court, without considering any of the issues, has allowed the application

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB R.F.A. No.1310/2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

by rejecting the plaint. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has failed to understand the scope of Section 9 of the CPC and the rejection should be an exception. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶44

Per contra , Sri.Shrinivas B.S., learned counsel

¶45

for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the plaint averments make it clear that the suit schedule property has been acquired and the compensation has been paid. Hence, the question of seeking the reliefs of declaration, adverse possession and grant of permanent injunction is not maintainable. The Trial Court, considering the law on point has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaint is barred under law and has rejected the same which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶46

We have heard the arguments of the learned

¶47

counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB R.F.A. No.1310/2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides.

¶51

The point that arises for consideration in these appeals is "Whether the impugned order of the Trial Court calls for any interference?"

¶52

The answer to the above point is in the negative

¶53

for the following reasons:

¶54

(a) The appellants have filed a suit in O.S.No.7852/2017 seeking the relief of declaration that the appellants have perfected their title by adverse possession against the respondents by showing animus possessendi and consequently, declaration that the appellants are the owners of the suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the respondents from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB R.F.A. No.1310/2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

schedule property is a land bearing Sy.No.15/6B which was re-numbered as Sy.No.54 and again re-numbered as Sy.Nos.367 and 361 of Belur Nagasandra Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring East to West 154 feet and North to South 141 feet, totally measuring 20 guntas in which RCC building, asbestos sheet house were erected about 40 years ago and also coconut plant and banana plant and vegetables etc. The plaint averments indicate that the appellants purchased the suit schedule property from W.H.Rains and thereafter, they are in possession of the property and they are residing in the said property. The plaintiff has made further averment that the respondents wanted to acquire the property for the purpose of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board and the acquisition proceedings have been started in the year 1970 and it has culminated by a declaration in the year 1970. The averments indicate that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award on 04.09.1976 and the copy of the award is produced as Document

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB R.F.A. No.1310/2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

No.16. The plaint averment further indicates that the appellants made a representation to the SLAO with regard to the right and title over the property and also sought a reference. It is also averred that reference petition was filed by the plaintiff in pursuance of notice issued by the SLAO on 26.08.1987 in LAC No.318/1997. Paragraph 13 of the plaint indicates that the appellants have specifically pleaded that the suit schedule property is notified for the acquisition of the respondent, however no possession is taken. The plaint averments makes it very clear that the suit schedule property has been acquired under the provisions of the Act, award is passed, the appellants sought the reference for higher compensation and the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation. With the aforesaid assertions in the plaint, the appellants claimed that they are in possession of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. The pleading does not indicate as to from which date the appellants are in adverse possession from the real owner. Be that as it

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB R.F.A. No.1310/2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

may, the suit schedule property against which the reliefs of declaration, adverse possession and permanent injunction are sought, is already vested with the State Government by the acquisition process under the provisions of the Act. The Trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that the suit is not maintainable and is barred under the Act. The Trial Court has also taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶64

AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. BRIJESH REDDY AND

¶65

ANOTHER¹ . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the possession is taken by the Authority, the land vests with the State Government free from any encumbrances. Further, the Act is a complete Code in itself. Therefore, the jurisdictional Civil Court to take cognizance of the case arising under the Act by necessary implication stood barred. Similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Supreme

¶66

Court in the case of MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA

¶67

1 AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 60

¶68

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB R.F.A. No.1310/2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

MURTHY Vs. SYED JALAL² . Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the specific averments in the plaint, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.4 filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the CPC. The contention that the issue of possession has to be gone into at the trial stage, has no merit as the respondent-Authorities have taken possession long back and the land is vested with them. The alleged possession of the appellant over the land after the acquisition is treated as a trespasser, not as a possessor whose occupancy supports an adverse possession claim. As a result, the suit for adverse possession, declaration of title and injunction of the appellant is not maintainable in view of the vesting of the land with the State free from all the encumbrances. We do not find any error or perversity in

¶71

2 (2017) 13 SCC 174

¶72