Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 368 (KAR)

Venkatappa v. Maramma Devaru

2025-06-12

ASHOK S.KINAGI

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ashok S.Kinagi, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2012 passed in R.A.No.420/2009 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Mysuru and the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2005 passed in O.S.No.417/1989 by the learned II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysuru. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.4, respondent Nos.1 to 6 were the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.7 to 9 were defendant Nos.1 to 3. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration to declare the order passed by defendant No.3 in KLRM No.55/1983-84 dated 28.10.1986 as null and void, unenforceable, not binding on the plaintiffs, illegal and without jurisdiction and also sought for a permanent injunction. 3.1 It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the permanent residents of hamlet called as Kukkarahalli, which is now part of Mysuru adjacent to the Saraswathipuram locality. There is a temple called Sri Maramma Temple and the chief deity, Maramma is worshipped by the people of that locality. The temple is managed from time to time by the permanent citizens of the said village. They have the legal competence to represent the Maramma temple, as they are managing the affairs of the temple and they are also the persons who can espouse the cause of the almighty. The suit schedule property belonging to the deity Maramma along with the revenue records for the years commencing from 1960 to 1979 and thereafter upto 1987-88 establishes the ownership and possession of the same. Thereafter, the schedule property was acquired by the then CITB, Mysuru, to form a residential layout. Since the deity Maramma was entitled to compensation for losing the land, the CITB deposited the compensation amount of Rs.7,500/- with the Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk. 3.2 It is stated that since the flow of income from the schedule land stopped after its acquisition, the plaintiffs submitted a representation to defendant No.2 during 1983-84 for disbursing the compensation amount. Defendant No.2 passed an order to that effect. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 and his predecessors were collecting the interest amount every year from 1974 till 1986, to perform pooja in Maramma temple effectively, during February. Defendant No.2 passed an order to that effect. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 and his predecessors were collecting the interest amount every year from 1974 till 1986, to perform pooja in Maramma temple effectively, during February. It is stated that defendant No.4 made an application/Form-7 to defendant No.3-Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights claiming as a tenant of the schedule property. The Land Tribunal granted the same under the Karnataka Inams Abolition Act, 1955. It is stated that before passing an order, no notice was issued by the Land Tribunal to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is not binding on the plaintiffs. It is further stated that the plaintiffs came to know about the order when they enquired about the payment of interest with defendant No.2. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to challenge the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 3.3 Defendant No.4 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. The plaintiffs have got equal efficacious remedy. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the suit. 3.4 Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed a separate written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable for non-issuance of statutory notice under Section 80 of CPC and prays to dismiss the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 3. 3.5 The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the order passed by the 3 rd defendant in KLRM 55/83- 84 dated 28.10.86 is null, void, unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiffs and illegal and with out jurisdiction? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the second defendant is disbursing or paying the compensation amount of Rs. 7,500/- in favour of the 4 th defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 4 th defendant is not entitled to receive the compensation amount? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to pay the compensation amount to the plaintiff? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the second defendant from making payment of the compensation amount to the 4 th defendant? 6. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to pay the compensation amount to the plaintiff? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the second defendant from making payment of the compensation amount to the 4 th defendant? 6. Whether the 4 th defendant proves that the suit schedule property was a Inam land and he was the poojary of deity Maramma and occupant of the suit schedule property? 7. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under section 132 of the KLRM Act? 8. Whether the suit is barred by time? 9. What order and decree?" 3.6 The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, examined plaintiff No.2 as PW1 and marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On the other hand, the defendants examined two witnesses as DWs.1 and 2 and marked one document as Ex.D1. 3.7 The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issued Nos.1, 3 to 5 in the affirmative, issue Nos.2 and 8 in the negative, issue No.6 partly affirmative and partly negative, issue No.7, the Court has jurisdiction to try the present suit and issue No.9, as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed with cost vide judgment dated 29.01.2005. It is declared that the order passed by defendant No.3-Land Tribunal, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru in KLRM 55/1983-84 dated 28.10.1986 is null and void and unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiffs and hence, defendant No.4 is not entitled to receive the compensation amount. Further directed defendant No.2 by way of permanent injunction restraining from making payment of compensation amount in respect of the suit schedule property to defendant No.4. Further, defendant No.2 was also directed to pay the deposit amount to plaintiff No.2 on behalf of Maramma Devi temple, who in turn shall open a Bank account in favour of Maramma Devaru temple and deposit the same in the said account and shall only spend interest accruing out of the deposit amount towards the pooja of the said temple. 3.8 The defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.417/1989, preferred appeals in R.A.Nos.420/2009 and 1269/2009. 3.9 The first Appellate Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: "1. 3.8 The defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.417/1989, preferred appeals in R.A.Nos.420/2009 and 1269/2009. 3.9 The first Appellate Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: "1. Whether the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. deserve to be allowed? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is improper? 3. Whether there are reasons to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court? 4. What order?" 3.10 The first Appellate Court, after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and point No.4 as per the final order. The appeals filed by the defendants were dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed. Defendant No.4, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed in R.A.No.420/2009 and O.S.No.417/1989, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. This Court issued notice to the plaintiffs. Despite the service of notice, the plaintiffs-respondents remained unrepresented. 5. Heard learned counsel for defendant No.4. Perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4 submits that the plaintiffs have not challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal before the appropriate authority. He submits that the order passed by the Land Tribunal attained the finality. The plaintiffs have got the efficacious remedy to challenge the order of the Land Tribunal. He submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs, for declaration challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, is not sustainable and there is a bar under Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The said aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. This Court, on 03.08.2022, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Courts below erred in examining the validity of the order of the Land Tribunal, when it is trite law where statute provides finality to the orders of the Land Tribunal, the Civil Court jurisdiction must be held to be excluded, if there is a remedy to do what Civil Court ultimately does in a suit? (ii) Whether both the Courts erred in entertaining the suit questioning the order of the Land Tribunal, when there is an express bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in adjudicating the correctness of the order of the Land Tribunal? Re. Substantial Questions of Law Nos.(i) & (ii): 8. The substantial questions of law are interconnected and they are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 9. The plaintiffs are challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Mysuru. The order passed by the Land Tribunal is final. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine some of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, I would like to refer to Sections 48-A (6), 132 and 133 of the Act, which read as follows: "48-A. Enquiry by the Tribunal, etc. xxxxxxxxxxxx (6) The order of the Tribunal under this section shall be final and the Tribunal shall send a copy of every order passed by it to the Tahsildar and the parties concerned: Provided that the Tribunal may, on the application of any of the parties, for reasons to be recorded in writing, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by it: Provided further that the Tribunal may on its own or on the application of any of the parties, for reasons to be recorded in writing correct the extent of land in any order passed by it after causing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the concern-parties." "132. Bar of jurisdiction.-(1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner, an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 77, the Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority under Section 83, the Tribunal the Tahsildar, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control. (2) No order of the Deputy Commissioner, an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 77, the Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority under Section 83, the Tribunal the Tahsildar, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, or the State Government made under this Act shall be question in any civil or criminal court." 133. (2) No order of the Deputy Commissioner, an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 77, the Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority under Section 83, the Tribunal the Tahsildar, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, or the State Government made under this Act shall be question in any civil or criminal court." 133. Suits, proceedings, etc., involving questions required to be decided by the Tribunal.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force.- (i) no Civil or Criminal Court or officer or Authority shall, in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land, decide the question whether such land is or is not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land from prior to 1st March 1974; (ii) such Court or officer or Authority shall stay such suit or proceedings in so far as such question is concerned and refer the same to the Tribunal for decision; (iii) all interim orders issued or made by such Court, officer or Authority, whether in the nature of temporary injunction or appointment of a Receiver or otherwise, concerning the land shall stand dissolved or vacated, as the case may be; (iv) the Tribunal shall decide the question referred to it under clause (i) and communicate its decision to such Court, officer or Authority. The decision of the Tribunal shall be final. (2) Nothing in sub-section(1) shall preclude the Civil or Criminal Court or the officer or authority from proceeding with the suit, case or proceedings in respect of any matter other than that referred to in that sub-section." 10. As per Sub-Section (6) of Section 48-A of the Act, the order passed by the Land Tribunal shall be final. When a statute gives finality to the orders of the Land Tribunal, the Act expressly excludes the Civil Court jurisdiction in regard to the tenancy matters. Section 132 of the Act contemplates that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or Criminal Court or Officer or Authority stood ousted in whether the decision to be taken as to whether the land in question was an agricultural land or not or whether the person claiming to be in possession is a tenant of the said land before 01.03.1974. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal. 11. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ishwaragouda and Ors., v. Mallikarjun Gowda and Others reported in (2009)1 SCC 626 , has held that once the Land Tribunal decides the question of tenancy, the Civil Court cannot have any jurisdiction to decide the said dispute in a civil proceeding in view of Section 133 of the Act. Such a decision of the Land Tribunal also cannot come under challenge before any Civil Court or if any order is passed by the Civil Court setting aside the decision of the Land Tribunal, such an order would be a nullity. 12. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwaragouda referred supra the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are contrary to the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case. 13. The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 01.06.2023 in the case of Rasoolsab and Ors. vs. Smt.Leelavati and Ors. , passed in RFA.No.100225/2019 by the Division Bench of this Court, where I was one of the members of the Bench. 14. In view of the above discussions, I answer the substantial questions of law Nos.(i) and (ii) in the affirmative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed; ii) The judgments and decrees dated 29.01.2005 passed in O.S.No.417/1989 by II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysuru and the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2012 passed in R.A.No.420/2009 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Mysuru are hereby set-aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed; iii) However, a liberty is reserved to the plaintiffs to challenge the order passed by the Land Tribunal before the appropriate forum; iv) No order as to costs. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending consideration of Interlocutory Applications does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the applications are disposed of.