Gowramma and Others vs Munikrishnappa and Others

N. Kumar, J.—1. This is the plaintiffs'' regular first appeal against the order dated 15.10.2015 passed on I.A.3 in O.S. No. 84/15 by the trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred to in the original suit.

The subject matter of the suit is that the land measuring 12 3/4 guntas in Sy. No. 200/1 and 1 acre 15 1/4 guntas in Sy. No. 200/1 both situated at Kudlu village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District which are more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint as schedule ''A'' property and Schedule ''B'' property (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''the schedule properties'').

The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of ''A'' schedule property and plaintiff No. 8 is the absolute owner of the ''B'' schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs claim title in the suit schedule properties under a compromise decree in O.S. No. 4458/2004 under which the ''A'' schedule property was allotted to the share of one Rama Reddy and ''B'' schedule property was allotted to the 8th plaintiff. Accordingly, their names were entered in the revenue records. Then they have referred to the proceedings initiated by the 1st defendant both before the Tahasildar for mutating his name in the revenue records and also the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal where an application was filed for grant of occupancy rights and the occupancy rights were granted in respect of the said survey number. On coming to know of the same, the plaintiffs filed a writ petition challenging the said order which came to be dismissed, against which, the writ appeal filed was also dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed was also dismissed. Therefore, in the end they have preferred this suit praying for relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

After referring to the aforesaid legal proceedings in para 24 of the plaint plaintiffs have categorically stated that even if the challenge to the order dated 3.6.1981 of the Land Tribunal by the plaintiffs has failed, then also the defendants have no right over the land in excess of 3 acres 30 guntas. As such, the defendants have no right over any piece of land in Sy. No. 200/1 of Kudlu village on the specious claim that the survey number 200 finds place in the order of the Land Tribunal. This conclusion is all the more fortified by the fact that the alleged landlord under whom the defendants 1 to 23 claim to be tenants, had no right over Sy. No. 200 as is evident from the sale deed dated 7.5.1970 where Sy. No. 200 does not find place. Then they have referred to the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 to 23, 24 and 26 contending that the purchasers under the aforesaid sale deeds are trying to collect construction materials in the suit schedule properties. They have asserted their right over the suit schedule properties which continue to accrue even to this date. When the plaintiffs were not successful in challenging the revenue entries in the very proceedings, they have approached the Civil Court for a declaration and for consequential reliefs.

After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement contesting the claim and they have set out their right to the property which is a right by virtue of the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal. They have also contended that the suit is not maintainable since the rights of the parties are already concluded by a competent Court. The plaintiffs having challenged the same and have failed, it is not open for them to prefer a suit and agitate the same and under the guise of seeking a declaration, they cannot challenge the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal. Thereafter, the defendants/respondents have filed an application -I.A.3 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure as the rights of the parties are already decided by the Land Reforms Tribunal which is confirmed by this Court and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected in limine.

Order VII Rule 11 Clause (a) of Code of Civil Procedure provides where a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, it shall be rejected. Order VII Rule 11 Clause (b) of Code of Civil Procedure deals with undervaluation of the relief claimed in the plaint and when it is required to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, then the plaint appears to be barred by law.

After setting out what they have stated in the written statement, the defendants sought for rejection of the plaint. Plaintiffs filed their objections reiterating what they have stated in the plaint. The trial Court on consideration of the rival contentions has rejected the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show their possession over the suit schedule properties. Further when the rights of the parties in respect of the suit schedule properties have been decided by this Court in W.P. No. 13113/2010 and also W.A. No. 611/2012 and plaintiffs Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court in SLP No. 17285/2013 having been dismissed confirming the order passed by this Court, the order granting occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal in favour of the father of the defendants has reached its finality. In those circumstances, the plaintiffs have no right to maintain a suit. When the trial Court has also referred Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and has come to the conclusion that what is the subject matter of proceedings under Section 133 of the said Act, cannot be the subject matter of a suit in the Civil Court and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. In fact, it has recorded a clear finding that the suit of the plaintiffs is clearly barred by the provisions of Sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Further it has also recorded findings that as the plaintiffs are not in possession, defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and there is no cause of action to the plaintiffs'' suit. Accordingly, it rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs assailing the impugned judgment and order contended that the specific case pleaded by the plaintiffs is, even if the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal has attained finality and defendants have been granted occupancy rights, the subject matter of the suit is not the subject matter of grant and under the guise of the said grant, the properties belonging to the plaintiffs which is the subject matter of the suit, is sought to be alienated and the purchasers are interfering with the plaintiffs'' possession. An attempt is made to collect the construction material and put the construction and therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained to file a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. The trial Court has not properly understood the scope of the suit and the question agitated in the suit. It is simply carried away by the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal and before this Court and has recorded a finding that the title of the suit schedule properties is already decided and the same cannot be re-agitated.

In so far as the proceedings under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is concerned, it is attracted only when the dispute is with reference to the question as to Whether the land in question is an agricultural land or not? Whether the plaintiffs are tenants of such agricultural land or not? Then the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted and the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal is to be upheld and that is not the question involved in the present suit. Therefore, he submits that the trial Court is thoroughly wrong in rejecting the plaint.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that the plaintiffs have cleverly drafted the plaint though the suit is styled as the suit for declaration and injunction, in substance, what the plaintiffs are contending is that the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal is affirmed by the Apex Court which is erroneous and they want a declaration by a Civil Court regarding their title. When once the title of the property is finally decided and has reached the finality, it cannot be re-agitated when Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is a bar for maintaining a suit as the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal has attained the finality and therefore, he submits that no case is made for interference.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and contentions, the point that arises for consideration in the appeal is:

"Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action and whether the suit is barred by any other law?"

As stated above, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration of their title to ''A'' and ''B'' schedule properties which are a portion of the land bearing Sy. No. 200/1. In the body of the plaint, the plaintiffs have in detail referred to the claim made by the 1st defendant''s father for grant of occupancy rights in respect of several survey numbers including Sy. No. 200 and the Land Reforms Tribunal has granted the occupancy rights, on the basis of which, the mutation entries are also made in their names. On coming to know of the same, the plaintiffs preferred writ petition challenging the grant which came to be dismissed. Against the order passed in writ petition, writ appeal was dismissed against which Special Leave Petition preferred was also dismissed. Thus the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal has attained the finality. After narrating those facts, they have specifically pleaded that the schedule properties are not the subject matter of grant. What the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are entitled to is only to an extent of 3 acres 30 guntas in several survey numbers referred to therein and the schedule property is not included in the said grant. But by virtue of the said grant, not only the 1st defendant is trying to assert the title to the schedule property, there are also several sale deeds alienating the properties in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 23, 24 and 26 and those purchasers are now trying to enter upon the properties asserting their title and collecting building materials. If that is so, the plaintiffs have right to seek a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the properties and that they are in possession and they should not be interfered with and they are entitled to seek for grant of injunction.

The question whether the suit property is the subject matter of the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal is a matter to be decided by the trial Court after enquiry and that cannot be the subject matter of application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Similarly, Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the disputes regarding the nature of the properties in question i.e., if there is dispute regarding the land whether it is an agricultural land or not, the same has to be decided by the Land Reforms Tribunal. Similarly a dispute regarding tenancy is to be decided by the Land Reforms Tribunal. Those questions are excluded from purview of the Civil Court.

In the instant case, the Land Reforms Tribunal had granted occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiffs is not in dispute. Whether the land in question is an agricultural land or not, the plaintiffs are not claiming any tenancy rights but they are claiming ownership rights on the basis of a sale deed dated 16.8.1909 by specifically pleading that the suit schedule properties are not the subject matter of the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal and therefore, it cannot said that the suit is not maintainable and is hit by Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. A reading of the impugned order shows that the trial Judge has virtually relied on all the documents produced by the defendants as if after the trial, it is appreciating the documentary evidence and has recorded its finding including a finding that the plaintiffs are not in possession and defendants are in possession of the suit schedule properties and Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act has barred the maintainability of the suit. It is clear that the trial Judge has not properly appreciated the pleadings of the parties, the law governing the same, the scope of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and ignoring the allegation that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties as alleged in the plaint, has committed a serious error in recording the findings of fact without there being a trial on those disputed questions which is not the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the trial Court is unsustainable and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following:

ORDER

"i) Appeal is allowed;

ii) The impugned order dated 15.10.2015 passed on I.A. 3 is hereby set aside and the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) is hereby dismissed; and

iii) The entire matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law."

However, it is made clear that the trial Court shall decide the case on merits without in any way being carried away by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding this appeal on merits.

Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20th April, 2016 without waiting for any notice by the Court.