Karnataka High Court
Ningappa S/O Kariyappa vs Kashappa on 24 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5185 OF 2008 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN
NINGAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA PUJARI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
DHARIYAPPA
S/O. KARIYAPPA PUJARI,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
1A. SMT MALLAVVA
W/O DHARIYAPPA PUJARI.
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KATAKAR ONL BILGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 116
Digitally
signed by 1B. SMT NEELAVVA
NIRMALA W/O PARUSHARAM MAMADAPUR,
DEVI AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: R/AT KATAKAR ONI, BILGI,
HIGH COURT DIST. BAGALKOT -587 116
OF
KARNATAKA
1C. MUTTAPPA
S/O DHARIYAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 34 YEARS. OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. KATAKAR ONI, BIGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 116
1D. SMT SHARADA
W/O HANAMANT GODEKAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KATAKAR ONI BILGI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
DIST BAGALKOT 587 116
1E. SMT. SAVITRI
W/O IRAPPA PUJARI @ MALLADAD,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KATAKAR ONI BILGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT -587 116
1F. SMT. LAXMAVVA
W/O. YALLALING MALLADAD,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. KATAKAR ONI, BILGI.
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 116
2. GURUSIDDAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: BILAGI DIST: BAGALKOT
3. GULAPPA
S/O KARRYAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: BILAGI DIST: BAGALKOT
4. SOMAPPA
S/O.KARIYAPPA PUJARI
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
4A. SMT. SHANTAVVA
W/O. SOMAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KILLA GALLI, BILGI-587 116.
DIST. BAGALKOT
4B. SMT BHARATI
W/O. BASAPPA SUNAGAD.
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KILLA GALLI BILGI,
DIST BAGALKOT-587 116
4C. SMT SAKKUBAI
W/O YALLAPPA SUNAGAD,
AGE 29 YEARS, OCE: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KILLA GALLI, BILGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT -587 116
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
4D.BEERESH
S/O SOMAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KILLA GALLI, BILGI,
DIST BAGALKOT 587 116
4E. SATISH
S/O SOMAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 24 YEARS. OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: KILLA GALLI, BILGI,
DIST BAGALKOT 587 116
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI GIRISH A YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KASHAPPA
S/O. MAYAPPA BIDARI,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS-
1A. SMT. GAYATRI
W/O KASHAPPA BIDARI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCE: AGRILTURE,
R/O: YALLAMMA TEMPLE, KATAKAR ONI,
BILGI DIST: BAGALKOT 587 116
1B. REVANSIDDAPPA
S/O. KASHAPPA BIDARI,
AGE: 28 YRS, OCC:AGRIL,
R/O: NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
KATAKAR ONI, BILGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT. 587 116
1C. MAYAPPA
S/O. KASHAPPA BIDARI,
AGE: 25 YRS, OCC:AGRIL,
R/O: NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
KATAKAR ONI, BILGI.
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 116
1D.SMT.SHAKUNTALA
W/O. DHARIYAPPA JYOTEPPANAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:AGRIL,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
R/NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
KATAKAR ONI, BILGI.,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 116
1E.SMT. SABAVVA
W/O. PARASAPPA DONUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:AGRIL,
R/NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
KATAKAR ONI, BILGI..
DIST. BAGALKOT. 587 116
1F.SMT. PRABHAVATI
W/O. KALLEPPA JYOTEPPANAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:AGRIL,
R/NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
KATAKAR ONI, BILGI.,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 116
1G.SMT. SHIVALILA
D/O. KASHAPPA BIDARI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL,
R/NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
KATAKAR ONI, BILGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 116
2. HANAMANTAPPA
S/O. MAYAPPA BIDARI.
AGE: MAJOR. OCC: AGRICULTURE.
R/AT BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT 587 116
3. BASAVANTAPPA
S/O. MAYAPPA BIDARI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT BILAGI. DIST: BAGALKOT 587 116
4. SHIVARAYAPPA
S/O MAYAPPA BIDARI.
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT 587 116
5. SMT. CHANDRAWWA
W/O BEERAPPA JYOTEPPANNAVAR
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/AT: BAGALKOT 587 116
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
6. SMT. SIDDAWWA
W/O. SIDDAPPA HORAGATTI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
7. SMT. MAGAWWA
W/O. SIDDAPPA DIVANDAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT BAGALKOT 587 116
8. KAMAPPA
S/O MAYAPPA BIDAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS -
8A. SMT. RENUKA
W/O. KAMAPPA BIDARI
AGE: 45 YRS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O: KONNUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT 587 301
9. KUMARI BALAVVA
D/O MAYAPPA BIDARI
AGE:MAJOR. OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
R/AT. BILAGI, BAGALKOT 587 301
(RESPONDENT NO.9 BEING REPRESENTED
BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN NAMELY
RESPONDENT NO. 1A SMT. GAYATRI
W/O KASHAPPA BIDARI AGE: MAJOR,
OCC; AGRIL, R/O BILAGI)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B HIREMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4, R8(A), R1(A) TO 1(G))
SRI VIJAY M MALALI, ADVOCATE FOR R5
R6-R9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE
1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT:
20.08.2008 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) BILAGI, IN RA
NO.138/2005 THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED:15-10-2005 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
BILGI, THEREBY DISMISSING THE SUIT IN OS NO.153/1993 AND
DECREE THE SAID SUIT AS PRAYED, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC./
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 24.06.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2008 passed in R.A No.138/2005 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Bilagi2 and the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2005 passed in OS No.153/1993 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & J.M.F.C, Bilagi3, whereunder the suit for declaration, possession and injunction was has been dismissed by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 and his younger brothers Gadigeppa, Ningappa, Dhariyappa, Gurusiddappa, Gulappa and Somappa, are the owners of the suit land bearing R.S No.218/3 measuring 4 acres situated at 1 Hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' 2 Hereinafter referred to as the 'first appellate Court' 3 Hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR Mannikeri village in Bilagi taluk4. Plaintiff No.1 being the eldest member, along with his brothers has filed the suit as a manager of the family. The hand sketch has been produced along with the plaint, whereunder, the plaintiffs' property is demarcated as 'ABCD' therein and the property of the defendants which is adjoining the plaintiffs property in the south is shown as 'DCEF'.
4. That the suit land in R.S No.218/3 originally belongs to Shashagirirao Govindrao Sardesai5, the Inamdar of Mannikeri village. That he granted the suit land to the plaintiffs' father Kariyappa Ningappa Pujari6 as a permanent tenant on the condition that Pujari should pay 5-4 annas by way of rent and local fund. M.E No.624 dated 15.08.1951 was effected in that respect and certified on 09.12.1951. That from the date of grant, the plaintiffs father and after his death the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of 4 acres of suit property openly and peacefully without any objection from anyone. 4 Hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property' 5 Hereinafter referred to as the 'Sardesai' 6 Hereinafter referred to as the 'Pujari' -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR
5. That the defendants purchased land bearing R.S.No.218/4 measuring 4 acres lying to the south of plaintiffs land from its previous owner on 11.02.1983 and they are in possession of the said land. That the defendants filed an application that the extent of their land should be mentioned as 6 acres, pursuant to which RTS proceedings were held in that respect and the Deputy Tahasildar, Anagwadi passed an order to that effect, that the defendants land should be shown as 6 acres instead of 4 acres as per the Akarbandi. That the plaintiffs challenged the order of the Deputy Tahasildar in an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi, which was erroneously dismissed. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking for declaration and injunction.
6. The defendants No.1a, 1b and 1d entered appearance through their counsel and filed a written statement and denied the case of the plaintiffs. It is denied that the plaintiff No.1 and his brothers are the owners and are in actual possession of the R.S No.218/3 measuring 4 acres. That the land bearing survey No.218/3 which belongs to the said Sardesai, then the Inamdar of Mannikeri Village, had a number -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR of sub-divisions which were measured in the year 1963. That in the final sub-division measurement, the land in possession of the plaintiffs father was measuring 2 acres 18 guntas. That the said measurement was finalised by the ADLR. That, as per the order passed by the Deputy Tahasildar, Anagwadi, which was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, M.E No.2635 was certified in the Revenue records. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs based on old records is not maintainable and their father was never in possession of the land exceeding 2 acres 18 guntas.
7. The defendants denied the description of the property as per the hand sketch filed along with the plaint and that the defendants' land measures 4 acres 39 guntas. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff No.1 and his brothers had not acquired any interest under the grant by Sardesai and contended that Sardesai has no right to grant any portion of paragana land as a permanent tenant after the abolition of the Paragana Inam Land Act. That the plaintiffs' father has not acquired any right by virtue of the grant made by Sardesai as prior permission of the Government was not obtained.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR
8. It is the further case of the defendants that the original defendant and his predecessors have been in possession of the land within the boundaries of previous sub- division No.4, (present sub-division No.5) as recorded in pot hissa measurement in the year 1963, measuring 4 acres 39 guntas. The defendants further denied that the plaintiffs have perfected their title over the disputed 2 acres of land by way of adverse possession. That the suit, without seeking for setting aside of the pot hissa measurement, is not maintainable and the suit for declaration is barred by limitation. Hence, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.
9. The Trial Court, consequent to the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:
i. "Whether plaintiff proves that the extent of suit land bearing Sy:No.218/3 of Mannikeri is 4-0-0? ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit land to the extent of 4-0-0 has granted to his father as permanent tenant by its owner S.G.Sardesai the then Inamdar of Mannikeri village, and its validty? iii. Whether the plaintiff proves that himself and his six brothers are the owners and in actual possession of the suit land to the extent of 4-0-0 as on the date of suit?
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR iv. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant interfered and caused obstruction over his use and enjoyment of the suit land to the extent of 4- 0-0, as alleged?
v. Whether the plaintiff proves that alternatively he has become owner of the disputed 2-0-0, by way of adverse possession?
vi. Whether the suit of the plaintiff, without challenging the order of Assistant Commissioner Jamakhandi is maintainable?
vii. Whether the defendant proves that suit without seeking the relief of setting aside the pot-hissa measurement of 1963, is not maintainable? viii. Whether the defendant proves that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? ix. Whether the defendant proves that the alleged grant of land by Inamdar, in favour of father of plaintiff, without the permission of the Government and without any registered deed has no sanctity in the eye of law?
x. Whether the court fee paid is correct? xi. To what reliefs the plaintiff is entitle for? xii. What order and decree?"
10. The plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. Exs.P1 to 27 have been marked in evidence. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR and another witness as DW.2. Exs.D1 to D6 have been marked in evidence.
11. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 24.9.1996 dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred RA No.126/1996 before the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Jamakhandi. In RA No.126/1996, the plaintiffs preferred I.A.Nos.1 to 5 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC seeking inter alia, to produce documents by way of additional evidence and also to lead oral evidence. The First Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 allowed I.A.Nos.1 to 5 filed in RA No.126/1996 as well as the said appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.9.1996 passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication on merits. Subsequent to remand, the plaintiffs appeared before the Trial Court on 7.4.2005. Thereafter, PW.1 further examined himself and marked Exs.P28 to P60. PW.1 was not cross-examined by the defendants. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 15.10.2005, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred R.A
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR No. 138/2005. The defendants entered appearance before the First Appellate Court and contested the same.
12. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration:
i. "Whether the lower court is justified in holding issue No.1 in the negative?
ii. Whether the lower court is justified in answering issue No.2 in the negative?
iii. Whether the lower court is justified in answering issue No.3 in the negative?
iv. Whether the lower court is justified in answering issue No.4 in the negative?
v. Whether the lower court is justified in answering issue No.5 in the negative?
vi. Whether the lower court is justified in answering issues No.6 and 7 in the affirmative? vii. Whether the lower court is justified in answering issue No.8 in the affirmative?
viii. Whether the lower court is justified in answering issue No.9 in the affirmative?
ix. Whether the lower court is justified in answering issue No.10 in the affirmative?
x. Whether the lower court is justified in answering issue No.11 in the negative?
xi. What order?"
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR
13. The First Appellate Court, by its judgment dated 20.08.2008, dismissed the above appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the present second appeal is filed.
14. This Court, vide order dated 15.04.2014, admitted the above appeal and framed the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed a serious error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff without considering the material evidence placed on record, more especially Exs.P28 and P29, the orders passed under Section 77(a) of the Karnataka Land Reforms (amendment) Act, and thus the judgments have become perverse and illegal?"
15. Learned counsel Sri.Girish.A.Yadawad, appearing for the appellants vehemently contends that during the pendency of the proceedings before the First Appellate Court, the order under Section 77A of the Land Reforms Act, 19617 was passed, as a result of which, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court, to specifically consider the said order of the land Tribunal and to adjudicate the issues framed. That the Trial Court has not considered the same, and erroneously 7 Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1961'
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR dismissed the suit, which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. He further submits that both the Courts ought to have taken note of the order passed under Section 77A of the Act, 1961 holding that the plaintiffs are the owners of an extent of 4 acres in R.S No.218/3, the same having been granted under Section 77A of the Act, 1961.
16. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Mallikarjunaswamy B.Hiremath, appearing for the defendants submitted that in the survey settlement done in terms of Section 152 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 19648, in the year 1963, the sub- division in survey No.218 has been measured which is forthcoming from Ex.D2. The plaintiffs not having challenged the said surveyor settlement, are not entitled to maintain the present suit. It is further contended that the plea of adverse possession is mutually contrary to the primary case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners in possession of the property. It is further contended that with malafide objectives, the plaintiffs have approached the Assistant Commissioner and made an application in Form No.7(A) of the Land Reforms Act, which the plaintiffs were not entitled to do since the land 8 Hereinafter referred to as the, Act, 1964
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR granted in favour of the father of the plaintiffs is by virtue of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 19779 and that the same is forthcoming from Ex.D1. It is further contended that the case sought to be put forth that the plaintiffs are the owner of the property by virtue of the order of the Land Tribunal is not pleaded in the plaint and the same is not the basis for title claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit.
17. Responding to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants submits that the suit is maintainable notwithstanding the report of the survey settlement. He further submits that an application for grant can be maintained under both the Acts and there is no bar for the plaintiffs to approach the Assistant Commissioner and file application in Form 7A of the Act, 1961.
18. Both the learned counsels have relied on various judgments, which shall be considered during the course of this order, to the extent the same necessary for adjudication of the questions that arise for consideration. 9 Hereinafter referred to as the 'Certain Inams Act'
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR
19. The contentions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record has been perused, including the records of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Before considering the contentions put forth by both the learned counsels, it is necessary to notice the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
20. The Trial Court has recorded a finding that the relief of declaration cannot be granted since the plaintiffs have neither produced any documents of title nor any registered deeds evidencing the alleged grant by Sheshagirirao Sardesai, the then Inamadar of Mannikeri in favour of plaintiffs father. The Trial Court has further, noticing Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.29, recorded a finding that the said documents having come into existence during the pendency of the suit, the same creates doubt and hence recorded a finding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any declaratory relief. That the plaintiffs have not produced any document of title showing their possession of the suit land to the extent of 4 acres and hence, have failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit property as claimed in the plaint. That the claim of the plaintiffs relies mainly on the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR revenue records, the presumption available to the said revenue records is a rebuttable one. That the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of adverse possession and that the suit is barred by time.
21. The First Appellate Court upon re-appreciation of the material on record has held that the plaintiffs have failed to place cogent and acceptable evidence before the Court to show their ownership over the suit land. That the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and possession was affirmed. That the order produced at Exs.P28 and P29 could not be relied upon.
22. The primary contention that is put forth by the plaintiffs/appellants is that the suit was initially dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.1996 and the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.126/1996 which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court by judgment dated 30.10.2004. That consequent to the remand, the plaintiffs have adduced further evidence and marked Exs.P.28 to P.60 and that there has been no cross-examination on behalf of the defendants with respect to the further evidence adduced by the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR plaintiffs consequent to the order of remand. That the documents produced consequent to remand as Exs.P.28 to P.60 are the order dated 04.12.1999 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi and other documents consequent to the same have not been taken into consideration. It is the specific contention of the appellants, in respect of which the substantial question of law has been framed on 15.4.2014, that both the Courts have not considered the said further evidence adduced by the plaintiffs consequent to the remand as noticed above.
23. The response of the respondents/defendants to the said contention is that the plaintiffs were not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Land Reforms Act since the lands were covered under the Certain Inams Act. That the lands originally were covered under the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watan (Abolition) Act, 195010 and subsequently by the Certain Inams Act. It was further contended that the case of the plaintiffs placing reliance on the order of the Assistant Commissioner is contrary to the case put forth in the plaint. 10
Hereinafter referred to as 'Watan Act'
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR
24. However, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants would contend that the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to make an application under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act notwithstanding any application that would have been made under the Certain Inams Act.
25. Since the said contention was put forth vide order dated 07.03.2025, the following further substantial question of law was framed:
"Whether the plaintiff was entitled to seek for grant of land under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Form No.7A having regard to the admitted fact that the suit lands are inam lands?"
26. In order to consider the same, it is relevant to notice the following judgments relied upon by both the learned counsels.
26.1. In the case of Muniyalappa VS.
B.M.Krishnamurthy and Others11, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a question as to whether an applicant who was denied registration of occupancy under the Inams Abolition Act, 11 1992 Supp (3) SCC 26
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR has a right to claim tenancy under the Act, 1961. Considering the said question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"5. It may be stated that the purpose and scope of the two Acts are distinct. The Inams Abolition Act was enacted for the purpose of abolition of inam tenures and conversion of such tenures into ryotwari tenure and in that process, grant of occupancy rights to the inamdars and the three classes of tenants specified in that Act. The purpose of the Land Reforms Act, however, is quite different. The main purpose was to abolish the relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of tenanted lands and to confer occupancy rights on tenants who are personally cultivating the lands. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the appellant under the Inams Abolition Act does not lead to the inference that he has no claim for occupancy right under the Land Reforms Act. The appellant claims that he is a deemed tenant as provided under Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act. The requirement of deemed tenant, as provided under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act, must be determined by the Land Tribunal. The High Court having come to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal was not in accordance with the rules of natural justice ought to have remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal."
(Emphasis supplied) 26.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pillamma (Dead) and Others. VS. M. Ramaiah Reddy (dead) through Lrs. and another.12, was considering a similar question as to whether a person who had earlier claimed ownership rights over the land in question under the Karnataka 12 AIR Online 2022 SC 1236
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 which he failed to establish, was entitled to contend that he is a tenant of the land under the Act, 1961. Considering the said question and noticing its earlier judgment in the case of Muniyalappa11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"17. Under the scheme of the Act 1954, all lands in Inam villages vested in the State Government. But under the Act 1961, not all agricultural lands vest in the State; only lands held by or in possession of tenants immediately prior to 1st March, 1974 vest in the State Government. The claim of the tenant or tenants for registration of occupancy rights under the Act, 1961 has to be decided with reference to the date of vesting under Section 44, viz., 1st March 1974. Under the Act 1954, the rights of the Inamdars and tenants were decided with reference to the date of vesting, viz, 1st February, 1959 under the said Act.
18. The scope and purport of the two Acts being different, termination of the proceedings under the Act, 1954 in regard to grant of occupancy rights cannot bar an enquiry to establish the claim under Section 45 of the Act, 1961 by the Land Tribunal. What the Tribunal, under the Act, has to inquire into, is whether the lands claimed by the applicant before it, have vested in the State Government under Section 44 of the Act 1961. For that purpose, it has to decide whether the lands were held by or in the possession of any tenant immediately prior to 1st March, 1974(the date of vesting).
19. This is what has been examined by the Tribunal in extenso and thereafter finding was recorded that the first respondent was in possession and was cultivating the subject land in question immediately prior to 1st March, 1974 (the vesting date) under Section 44 of the Act, 1961 and accordingly declared to confer the occupancy rights to the first
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR respondent under its order dated 16th December 2002."
(Emphasis supplied) 26.3. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sannaiah and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others13, was considering a question as to whether the rejection of claim made for grant of occupancy rights under Section 77A of the Act of 1961 on the ground that the said Act was inapplicable to inam lands was just and proper. This Court considered a contention as to whether there was a bar either under the Certain Inams Act or the Act, 1961 itself entitling consideration of application under Form No.7A in respect of inam lands. This Court, relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Muniyalappa11 and Pillamma12, has held as follows:
"7.The only aspect that is required to be considered by this Court is could the Land Tribunal-Assistant Commissioner reject an application filed under Form 7A filed under section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act on the ground that the land as regards which an application in Form 7A has been filed is an inam land and therefore, would be amenable to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
8.The above issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held in MUNIYALAPPA's 13 W.P No.24289/2019 dated 01.09.2022
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR case supra that an application by a tenant would be filed under Land Reforms Act even as regards the land which was an inam land. The said aspect has already been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Land Tribunal-Assistant Commissioner ought to have considered the proposition as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and pass necessary orders after considering all the aspects on merits."
(Emphasis supplied) 26.4. In the case of Mahadevamma Vs. The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Revenue Department and another14, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
"8. On perusal of Section 126 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, we are of the view that the Government has permitted the Land Tribunal consider the applications filed in Form No.10 of Certain Inams Abolition Act for regrant. However, Section 126 of K.L.R. Act cannot be misdirected as if all the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act is made applicable to Inam lands. Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act enables a person who has not filed an application in Form No.7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to make an application separately. We would have appreciated the arguments of Mr. Ponnanna provided in respect of inam lands also Form No. 7 under K.L.R. Act and can be filed when a person claiming to be a tenant under Certain Inams Abolition Act has to make an application in Form No.1 of Certain Inams Abolition but, not in Form No. 7 of the Land Reforms Act, Section 126 of the Act cannot be misinterpreted contending that Form No. 7A can also be filed for Inam land. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that Section-77A of the Land Reforms Act cannot be pressed into service to claim a right in respect of inams land which is covered under the provisions of the 14 2013 SCC Online kar 9901
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. Accordingly, we answer the said point against the appellant."
27. It is clear from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Muniyalappa11 and Pillamma12 which is also noticed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sannaiah13, that a tenant would be entitled to file an application under the Land Reforms Act even as regards the lands which were inam lands as the scope and purport of the two Acts are different as also the scope of enquiry. In view of the settled position of law, the further substantial question of law framed on 7.3.2025 is answered in the affirmative.
28. The primary contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, with regard to the substantial question of law dated 15.04.2014 is that Ex.P28 was the order passed under Section 77A of the Act, 1961 during the pendency of the proceedings before the First Appellate Court in the first round of litigation and since the same was produced before the First Appellate Court, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for consideration of the documents produced subsequently which has not been done.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR
29. At this juncture, it is relevant to notice that the plaintiffs who had preferred RA No.126/1996 filed IA Nos.1 to 5 in the said RA No.126/1996 to permit the appellants/plaintiffs to produce documents as well as to lead oral evidence. The First Appellate Court while considering the appeal as well as the said applications, noticed that the documents that were placed on record before the First Appellate Court were not available before the Trial Court to decide the dispute on merits and since additional evidence was sought to be adduced by the appellants/plaintiffs, remanded the matter to the Trial Court. It was also noticed that there were subsequent changes in respect of the suit property measuring 4 acres since the occupancy rights had been granted in favour of the plaintiffs' family members as per the documents produced by the appellants.
30. However, it is necessary to note that, after remand, PW.1 was further examined and Ex.P28 to Ex.P60 were marked in evidence. PW.1 was not cross-examined. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, while noticing the further evidence adduced by the plaintiffs had merely recorded a finding that the same having been adduced during the course of proceedings,
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR the said further evidence including the order of the Land Tribunal, cannot be looked into.
31. The plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration and injunction with regard to the suit property by claiming that the suit lands belonged to one Sheshagirirao Govindrao Sardesai, the Inamdar of Mannikeri village and that the suit lands were granted to the plaintiffs' father as a permanent tenant, which was reflected in M.E. No.624 dated 15.08.1951. However, the case that is put forth by the plaintiffs which consequently resulted in the order of remand is that the plaintiffs were the owner of lands by virtue of the grant made by the Assistant Commissioner. The plaintiffs have not amended the plaint and hence have not averred in the pleadings regarding their claim of title over the suit property by virtue of the order dated 08.08.1952 (Ex.P8). Hence, it is clear that the case that was subsequently sought to be put forth by the plaintiffs before the First Appellate Court, which resulted in the remand of the matter, was not pleaded by the plaintiffs.
32. It is pertinent to note here that pursuant to the order of remand, the plaintiffs have produced a certified copy of
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR the order dated 4.12.1999 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 77A of the Land Reforms Act (Ex.P28), certified copy of Form No.1 (Ex.P29), the mutation entries (Exs.P30 to 32) and the revenue records (RTC extracts) (Exs.P33 to 59) as also certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 22.1.1983 (Ex.P60). It is also pertinent to note here that consequent to remand, when PW.1 was further examined-in- chief on 29.8.2005 before the Trial Court, the said Exs.P28 to P60 were merely produced and marked in evidence. PW.1 has not even deposed as to the nature of the said documents that were subsequently marked in evidence and the nature of the right sought to be asserted by the plaintiffs by virtue of the said documents that were marked in evidence subsequent to remand.
33. The suit that was originally filed by the plaintiffs was based on a different cause of action i.e., the right, title and interest asserted by the plaintiffs claiming title by virtue of the grant made by Sheshagiri Govindrao Sardesai, the inamdar of Mannikeri village, to the plaintiffs' father as a permanent tenant. The plaintiffs having not pleaded their case regarding
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR assertion of title by virtue of the grant made under Section 77A of the Land Reforms Act, even the defendants did not have an adequate opportunity to contest the same and there was no proper adjudication of the rights of the parties to the suit vis-à- vis the rights sought to be asserted amongst them as noticed above.
34. It is also pertinent to state here that the defendants would also be entitled to contest the case put forth by the plaintiffs vis-à-vis their claim made pursuant to the order dated 4.12.1999 (Ex.P28). Although, the matter was remanded by the First Appellate Court in the first round of litigation, the plaintiffs not having amended the plaint seeking for adequate reliefs, it is clear that the defendants did not have an opportunity to contest the same.
35. Hence, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court having recorded the findings as noticed above, were justified in not noticing Exs.P28 and P29 since the case put forth by the plaintiffs in the plaint was not in terms of the said Exs.P28 and P29. Hence, the substantial question of law framed vide order dated 15.4.2014 is answered in the negative.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240 RSA No. 5185 of 2008 HC-KAR
36. However, liberty is reserved to the plaintiffs to assert and establish their title in respect of the suit property on the basis of the order dated 4.12.1999 (Ex.P28) by instituting appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, subject to all just exceptions. It is also open to the defendants to question/contest the order dated 4.12.1999 (Ex.P28) in accordance with law.
37. Subject to the observations made at para 36, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP/BS/ND List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1