The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25582 MSA No. 122 of 2023 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.122 OF 2023 (RO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI, W/O SRNIVASA ACHAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MALURU VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577453. 2. SMT. ANNAPURANA, W/O MOHAN K.S., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 3. SRI. MOHANA K.S., S/O SHRIDHARA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: PUJARU. APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/O 8TH CROSS, BAPUJI NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA – 577201. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VEERESH MAHESH UPPIN, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND:
Legal Reasoning
having considered the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have made out the case and there is an interference by the defendant and the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction, as sought. The discussion was made with regard to the documents, which stands in the name of the plaintiffs as well as taken note of the documents at Exs.D.1 to 5 and also extracted the admission on the part of D.W.1 with regard to the filing of an application in Form No.7A, which is marked as Ex.D.5 and comes to the conclusion that there is a discrepancy in the document of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25582 MSA No. 122 of 2023 HC-KAR Ex.D.5 and the same cannot be believed and it can be seen that the extent and survey number was overwritten and further observation is made that the defendant has contended that the tenancy matter is pending before the Land Tribunal. While arguing the case, the learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that when the question of tenancy is raised by the defendant, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. To that effect also, an observation is made that only a case in which a bonafide and legally sustainable plea of tenancy is taken by a party must be referred to Tribunal for adjudication. Having considered the document of Ex.D.5 and cross-examination of D.W.1, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that no such bonafide and legally sustainable plea of tenancy is raised and hence granted the relief of permanent injunction. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of permanent injunction, an appeal is filed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo as well as the arguments of both the learned counsel, formulated the point whether the Trial Court has committed an error in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25582 MSA No. 122 of 2023 HC-KAR deciding the suit during the pendency of Land Tribunal proceedings? The Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, particularly taking into note of the application is pending, i.e., Form No.7A, in paragraph No.21 discussed that with this backdrop of the provisions of the law and laid down in the judgments reported supra in respect of tenancy rights and jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide the matter related to tenancy rights, carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. In the cross- examination, P.W.1 has not denied the suggestion that the defendant has filed Form No.7A before the Land Tribunal. It is further observed that the defendant has also not denied the suggestion that the said application in Form No.7A is still pending for consideration by the Land Tribunal. Further, he has denied the suggestion that the defendant is cultivating the suit schedule property as tenant. In the cross- examination of P.W.1, the learned counsel for the defendant has specifically contended that the family of the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as tenants since 1958. In his evidence as D.W.1, the defendant has claimed that his family is in cultivation of the suit schedule property as tenant since 1970. During the course of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25582 MSA No. 122 of 2023 HC-KAR his evidence also, the defendant has produced Ex.D.1 NTC dated 22.10.2013 issued by the Tahsildar Office. On perusal of it, it reveals that V.R.No.16/1999-2000 of Form No.7A filed by the defendant herein, in respect of the suit schedule property is not yet concluded. Further, the defendant has also produced Ex.D.3 his statement recorded by the Revenue Inspector of Anavatti Hobli, wherein he has stated that he is cultivating the suit land as tenant since prior to 1973-74. He has also relied upon Ex.D.4 report of the Revenue Inspector from which it is very clear that the Revenue Inspector has stated that the defendant herein is cultivating the suit land bearing Sy.No.102 measuring 3 acres 19 guntas of Muguru village as tenant since the year 1973-74. The defendant has also produced Ex.D.5 copy of Form No.7A filed by him. 5. Having taken note of all these documents, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the occupancy rights is pending before the Tribunal for consideration. Further, if it is proved that the defendant was in possession of the suit land as on the date of commencement of Amendment Act 1 of 1974, which came into force from 01.03.1974, it vest with the State Government as per Section 44 of the K.L.R Act - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25582 MSA No. 122 of 2023 HC-KAR and the plaintiffs cannot claim lawful possession over it. Having re-assessed the material available on record and also the recent judgment in the case of K. RAVEENDRANATHA SHETTY AND ANOTHER v. SMT. MAIRE HENGASU AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2004 KAR 1615, comes to the conclusion that when the matter is pending before the Land Tribunal, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue and hence set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for denovo trial, after the decision of the Land Tribunal regarding the tenancy rights of the defendant by the Land Tribunal. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present miscellaneous second appeal is filed before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the Trial Court in detail discussed with regard to Form No.7A, wherein found that there is a discrepancy in respect of the survey number as well as alterations of the document and the same was taken note of and dealt with the matter and hence this Court has to frame a substantial question of law whether the lower Appellate Court was right in remanding the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25582 MSA No. 122 of 2023 HC-KAR matter to the Trial Court for fresh trial after the disposal of Form No.7A. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also having perused the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, no doubt, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is a discrepancy in Form No.7A, which is marked as Ex.D.5 before the Trial Court with regard to the survey number as well as the claim made by the defendant and the very claim made before the Land Tribunal is not bonafide and that the Civil Court can entertain the suit for permanent injunction and granted the relief. The Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, particularly in paragraph No.21, taken note of the documents, which have been marked before the Trial Court i.e., Exs.D.1 to 5, the application filed before the Thasildar as well as the report of the Revenue Inspector and also taken note of the very claim made by the defendant that from 1974 onwards, he was a tenant in respect of the particular survey number measuring 3 acres 19 guntas of Muguru Village and also the matter is pending before the Tribunal for consideration since Form No.7A by the defendant, TNC, VR No.16/1999-2000 has - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25582 MSA No. 122 of 2023 HC-KAR been registered in respect of his claim of occupancy rights on suit property as tenant. In paragraph No.22 also discussed with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and when such reasoning is given by the Appellate Court that there is a bar to consider the suit and the Civil Court cannot decide the issue when the issue of tenancy is pending before the Court and hence I do not find any error committed by the Appellate Court in reversing the finding of the Trial Court. However, the First Appellate Court also taken note of the interest of the appellants by remanding the matter and direction was given to take up the matter for denovo trial after the decision of the Land Tribunal regarding the tenancy rights of the defendant. It is also observed that the Trial Court shall refer the matter to the Land Tribunal as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Koraga Marakala v. Smt. Kamala, (1988) 1 Kar. L.J. 34. When such reasoning is given by the First Appellate Court, I do not find any error committed by the First Appellate Court to set aside the order and hence there is no merit in the miscellaneous second appeal to entertain the same. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:25582 MSA No. 122 of 2023 HC-KAR 8. In view of the discussions made by above, I pass the following:
Arguments
1. SRI. RAMAPPA MUDURARA MANE, S/O GUDDAPPA JADAR, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25582 MSA No. 122 of 2023 HC-KAR OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O MUGURU VILLAGE, ANAVATTI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577413. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.06.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.39/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.56/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR DENOVO TRIAL, AFTER THE DECISION OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL REGARD TO TENANCY RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANTS BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The notice issued against the respondent is served and unrepresented. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.39/2021 dated 24.06.2023. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the appellants/plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25582 MSA No. 122 of 2023 HC-KAR relief of permanent injunction is that they were in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and also contended that the defendant is interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiffs. The defendant appeared and contested the matter before the Trial Court. The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their contentions, examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked the document at Ex.P.1 and also got marked the documents at Exs.P.2 to 23 while confronting the same. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and examined two witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 5. The Trial Court
Decision
ORDER The miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed. The observations made by this Court shall not influence the Deputy Commissioner while considering Form No.7A. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72