Karnataka High Court
Vasanthaiah S/O Late Muniswamy Gowda vs Hanumantha Bhovi Since Dead By Lrs on 7 January, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1192
RSA No. 1692 of 2009
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1692 OF 2009 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. VASANTHAIAH
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
2. M.V. KUMAR
S/O VASANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
3. M.V. MANJUNATH
S/O VASANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
4. M.V. RAGHU
S/O VSANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESPONDENTS BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER N. PRASAD
AGED 48 YEARS
Digitally signed by S/O NARAYANAGOWDA
NANDINI M S R/A MAVAHALLI VILLAGE
Location: HIGH COURT ROBERTSONPEHOBLI
OF KARNATAKA BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. CHARISHMA, ADV., FOR
SRI L. VENKATARAMA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. HANUMANTHA BHOVI
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
a) CHANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1192
RSA No. 1692 of 2009
HC-KAR
b) SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
c) RAMESH
AGED AOBUT 30 YEARS.
d) SHIVAPPA
AGED AOBUT 27 YEARS.
e) SURESH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
No.(a) IS THE WIFE AND (b)
TO (e) ARE THE CHILDREN OF
LATE HANUMANTHA BHOVI AND
ALL ARE RESIDING AT SAMPANGIRAMAPURA
MARAGAL CHIKKANKANDAHALLI POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
2. SUBHANNA BHAVI
S/O YELLANNA BHAVI
R/AT SE\AMPANGIRAMAPURA
MARGAL, CHIKKANAHALLI POST TALUK
BANGARPET, DIST: KOLAR - 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T. SRINIVASAN, ADV. FOR R-1(A-E);
V/O DTD:21.08.2017 APPEAL AGAINST R-2 IS ABATED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 21.10.2009 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.273/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESITING OFFICER FAST
TRACK COURT, KGF, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED29.10.2002 PASSED IN
OS.NO.262/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.),K.G.F.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1192
RSA No. 1692 of 2009
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is filed with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2009 passed in R.A.No.270/2002 by the Fast Track Court, KGF, Kolar District.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Suit in O.S.No.262/1999 was filed by the appellants herein before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.
4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of one Gullappa, and subsequently he had sold the said property in favour of Smt. Kanakamma - wife of plaintiff no.1 and mother of plaintiff nos.2 to 4 under a registered sale deed dated 21.02.1977. Subsequently, the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property were also transferred in the name of Smt. Kanakamma and after survey of the said land, a new survey number was given as Sy. No.180. Survey sketch was also -4- NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009 HC-KAR prepared fixing the actual boundaries of the suit schedule property. After the death of Smt. Kanakamma, plaintiffs had succeeded to the suit schedule property. Defendants who have no right or interest whatsoever over the suit schedule property, were illegally interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property, and it is under these circumstances, they had filed the suit. The defendants had filed their written statement and opposed the suit claim. Before the Trial Court, plaintiffs had examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked ten documents as Ex.P1 to P10. On behalf of defendants, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and eight documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to D8. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides had decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 29.10.2022. The First Appellate Court in RA No.273/2002 by judgment and decree dated 21.10.2009 has set-aside the said judgment and decree passed in OS No.262/1999 by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this regular second appeal.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009 HC-KAR
5. This Court vide order dated 05.10.2010, while admitting this regular second appeal has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal:-
"Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in holding that the land in question was granted land with a non-alienation clause and therefore could not have been alienated within the non-alienation period and that such transfer was mull and void in terms of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978?"
6. Learned counsel for the appellants having reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submits that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. She submits that it is nobodys case that suit schedule property was purchased by Smt. Kanakamma from the original grantee PW2 Goolappa in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act and therefore, the Appellate Court was not justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has argued in support of the impugned -6- NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009 HC-KAR judgment and decree. He submits that plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and possession over the suit schedule property before the Trial Court was therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in decreeing the suit. The grant order does not mention the boundaries of the granted land and in the plaint, the boundaries have been given to the suit schedule property based on the survey sketch which is prepared subsequently. The grant of two acres of land made in favour of the father of the defendant No.1 is also included in the suit schedule property. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in decreeing the suit. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the second appeal.
8. Respondents/defendants have filed written statement in OS No.262/1999 denying the grant made in favour of Gullappa and the sale of the granted land by the grantee in favour of Smt. Kanakamma. It is further contented that father of defendant No.1 was granted land in Sy.No.92 of Mavahalli Village to the extent of land measuring 2 acres. Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is alleged that plaintiffs have claimed aforesaid extent of 2 acres of land in the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009 HC-KAR suit and an attempt is made to dispossess the defendants from the suit schedule property. The Trial Court based on the rival pleadings had framed four issues, which read as follows:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that they are in lawful Possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for?
4. To what order or decree?"
9. In support of plaintiffs' case, three witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and ten documents were got marked as Ex.P1 to P10. PW1/Prasad is the power of attorney of plaintiffs. PW2 is the vendor of suit schedule property and this witness has stated that suit schedule property was allotted to him and he was in possession of the property and he has also admitted the Sale Deed executed in favour of Smt. Kannakamma in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.P3 is the grant certificate dated 06.06.1978 under which the suit schedule property was granted to Gullappa and Ex.P2 is the -8- NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009 HC-KAR registered Sale Deed executed by PW2 in favour of Smt. Kanakamma, wife of plaintiff No.1 and mother of the other plaintiffs. Ex.P4 is the mutation extract and Ex.P10 is the survey sketch of the suit schedule property under which the boundary of the properties which were purchased by the plaintiffs under registered Sale Deed Ex.P2 from PW2. From the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the documentary evidence that was produced on behalf of the plaintiffs, it is very clear that plaintiffs had proved the title and possession of the suit schedule property.
10. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and eight documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to D8. Though it was contented on behalf of defendants that 2 acres of land in Sy.No.92 of Mavahalli Village was allotted to the father of defendant No.1, no such document was produced before the Trial Court to prove such grant. DW1 has pleaded ignorance about the boundary of the suit schedule property and also has pleaded his ignorance about the grant of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.92 of Mavahalli Village in favour of Goolappa. Even DW2 has pleaded ignorance of the grant made -9- NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009 HC-KAR in favour of Goolappa. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court had decreed the suit.
11. The First Appellate Court having upheld that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property has set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court solely on the ground that sale of the suit schedule property made by PW2, who is the original grantee in the present case was hit by Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act) and therefore, the said sale is void and cannot be sustained. It is under these circumstances, the First Appellate Court having set-aside the judgment and decree passed in OS No.262/1999 has directed the plaintiffs to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the State Government within two months from the date of the order.
12. Section 4 of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, provides for prohibition of transfer of granted lands and Section 5 provides for resumption and restitution of granted lands. The Assistant Commissioner, is the competent officer under Section 5 of the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009 HC-KAR Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, who is empowered to take action suo motu or on an application filed by any interested person if he is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act, in the said event, he is empowered to take possession of such land after evicting all persons thereof in the manner known to law and restore possession of the said land to the original grantee or his legal heir and if the same is not practicable to restore the land, such land shall be deemed to have vested in the Government free from all encumbrances.
13. In the case on hand, it is nobodys case that the sale of the granted land by the original grantee in favour of Smt. Kanakamma was hit by Section 4 of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act and thereby the same is null and void. A perusal of the provisions of the Act would go to show that it is only the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who is authorized to take action as provided under Section 5 of the said Act, in the event, if it is found that the transfer of granted land is hit by Section 4 of the Act. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass any orders as provided under Section 5 of the Act, even in the event, if it
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009 HC-KAR is presumed that defendants have raised such a contention in their written statement.
14. In the case on hand, as stated earlier, no such contention was raised by defendants and no issue was framed by the Trial Court. However, the Appellate Court after having arrived at a conclusion that the suit schedule property was sold by the grantee (PW2) in favour of Smt. Kanakamma in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act has proceeded to order resumption of the land and has directed the plaintiffs to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to the State Government. This approach of the Appellate Court is illegal and perverse. Under the circumstances, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in the affirmative. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.273/2002 is therefore, not sustainable. Accordingly, the following order:-
15. The regular second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 21.10.2009 passed in RA No.273/2002 by the Court of Fast Track Court, KGF, is hereby set-aside and the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2002 passed by the Court of
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009 HC-KAR I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), KGF, decreeing the suit of the appellants is hereby confirmed.
SD/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK/DN