Sri. S. Raman since dead by L.Rs. vs Sri. K.M. Ramaih and Others

Mohamed Anwar, J.—This revision by the Plaintiffs'' in O.S. No. 232 of 1986 is directed against the trial Court''s order dated 25.10.1999 by which the application i.e.I.A. No. 10, of Respondent No. 1-Defendant No. 1 filed u/s 151 CPC read with Sections 80 and 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 (''Act of 1974'' for short) has been allowed staying all further proceedings in the said suit.

A few material undisputed facts are that, the suit in O.S. No. 232 of 1986 was instituted by the Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as ''Plaintiffs'') against Respondents (hereinafter referred to as ''Defendants'') for the relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit agricultural land; for recovery of possession thereof and for permanent injunction. It was averred in the plaint that the suit land was sold to Plaintiffs by Defendants under a registered sale deed dated 21.10.1974, that since then they had been in possession and enjoyment thereof; that somewhere at the end of 1986 they were forcibly dispossessed therefrom by Defendants and later have taken forcible possession thereof and hence the Plaintiff''s suit for the said reliefs.

The Defendants have filed their written statement contesting the Plaintiff''s suit. In view of the pleadings several issues were framed by the trial Court for its determination. During pendency of the suit proceeding, I.A. No. 10 was filed by Defendant No. 1 seeking stay of further proceedings in the suit on the ground that the said sale transaction under the said sale deed was illegal transaction since it was done in contravention of Sections 80, 81 and 82 of the Act of 1974, and therefore he made an application under Sections 80 to 83 before the concerned Tahsildar, Bangarpet Taluk, who is the competent authority under the Act to pronounce on the legality or otherwise of the said sale transaction, and that the same was pending enquiry on the file of the said Tahsildar. That application was opposed by Plaintiffs mainly on the ground that there is no express provision whatever in the Act of 1974 or in CPC warranting stay of further proceedings in the suit on the grounds stated in I.A. No. 10 of Defendant No. 1. The trial Court on consideration of rival contentions has passed its speaking order allowing said I.A. No. 10 and staying all further proceedings in the said suit on its file till the final adjudication on the application of Defendant No. 1 which was shown to have been filed before the said Tahsildar on 9.11.1998 under Sections 80 to 83 read with Rule 39 of the Act of 1974. Aggrieved by that order, Plaintiffs have challenged the same in this revision.

The question whether stay of further proceedings by a trial Court in a suit pending on its file respecting an agricultural land on the grounds said in I.A. No. 10 is legally justified or not, is no longer res integra, since the point is directly covered by a decision of this Court in an unreported decision of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 2412 of 1972 decided on 7.2.1973 (Rangarao v. Raghavendracharya). Dealing with the identical question which had arisen under similar circumstances before it, this Court in the case of Rangarao (supra) observed:

In Halappa and Anr. v. Eravva and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 202 of 1970) decided on 8th June 1971, and in Irappa v. Hanumanthappa and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 52 of 1969) decided on 21st June 1971, this Court has taken the view that the question whether a transaction is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act has to be decided by the prescribed authority u/s 83 of the Act and not by any other authority. It follows that the Civil Court cannot decide whether the transaction is void or not on the aforesaid ground. Without deciding the question whether the sale in favour of the Defendant is valid or not, the Civil Court cannot make a decree for possession which the Plaintiff has sought in the course of the suit. Hence, before the Civil Court could grant the relief of possession in favour of the Plaintiff, there should be an adjudication regarding the validity of the transaction u/s 83 of the Act by the prescribed authority. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to hold that the Civil Court should stay further proceedings in a suit for possession filed on the basis that the transaction in question has been entered into in contravention of the Sections 63 and 64 of the Act, until the person who alleges that there has been contravention of Sections 63 and 64 of the Act is able to get the question decided by the prescribed authority.

Therefore, in the light of the ruling of this Court in the case of Rangarao, no fault could be found with the impugned order, in asmuch as the trial Court could not have proceeded to adjudicate upon the Plaintiff''s relief for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit land, muchless he is entitled to recovery of possession thereof in his own right as its owner, in view of Section 83 of the Land Reforms Act which vests the competent authority thereunder with exclusive power to decide whether the alleged sale transaction with respect to an agricultural land is valid or not in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1974.

Hence, the revision is dismissed. Send back Civil Revision Petition No. 2412 of 1972 (dated 7.2.1973) to the concerned section of this Court.