Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Plaintiffs who have suffered an adverse decree before the trial Court in O.S.No.2281/2007 are in appeals against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.11.2014 passed by V Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

2. In the course of this judgment, parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants respectively.

3. Plaintiffs pleaded before the Trial Court that the one Pilla Reddy, predecessor of the plaintiffs purchased an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas of land in Sy.No.56 of Singasandra Village from one Channappa and Papaiah under a registered Sale Deed dated 06.09.1946 (document No.1588:46-47). In a family partition that took place on 03.11.1969, the schedule property was allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiffs. Since then, plaintiffs are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In respect of the said property, certain persons namely Chikkamuniyappa, Thimmakka and Thimmarayappa filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru, for resumption of the suit land under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short 'SC/ST(PTCL) Act') on the ground that the land was originally granted to their ancestor and the alienation made in favour of aforesaid Pilla Reddy was in violation of the provisions of SC/ST(PTCL) Act. The Assistant Commissioner directed restoration of the land. This order was confirmed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru. Plaintiffs questioned the said orders before this Court in W.P.No.21646/1998 and by order dated 09.09.1998, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 30.12.1996 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure - H) Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to 1 acre 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.56 of Singasandra Village, which was the subject matter of enquiry before the Assistant Commissioner in K SC.ST.35/1995-96 was quashed.

5. Defendant on entering appearance, filed written statement of objection opposing the claim of the plaintiffs inter alia contending that he alone is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 12.10.2001 and further he contended that the L.Rs of the original grantee viz., Chikkamuniyappa, Smt. Thimmakka and Thimmarayappa obtained prior permission from the Government under section 4(2) of SC/ST(PTCL) Act, vide order dated 04.09.2011 in proceedings No.RD.247/LGV/2001 and sold the schedule property to him and therefore the suit filed against him was not maintainable.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, plaintiffs have preferred the above two appeals.

10. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the respective plaintiffs/defendants.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs at the outset submitted that the trial court has failed to advert its mind to the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs. The trial court has proceeded on the assumption that on account of the contentions urged by the defendants, there is dispute with regard to the title to the suit schedule property, when in fact no such dispute is in existence. The documents produced by the plaintiffs clearly indicate that the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the provisions of SC/ST(PTCL) Act have been set-aside by this court in W.P No.21646/1998, as such, there was no cloud whatsoever on the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property. The impugned order having been passed by the learned trial judge under erroneous understanding of law and facts, the same has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Thus, the appellants have sought to set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

12. The argument of the learned counsel for the defendants is that the enquiry into the alleged violations of section 4 of the SC/ST(PTCL) Act is seized by the authorities constituted under the provisions of the SC/ST(PTCL) Act.

13. Defendant has purchased 4 acres 36 guntas of cultivable land and 1 acre 11 guntas karab land from the L.Rs. of the original grantee after obtaining previous permission of the Government as required under Section 4(2) of the Act. The sale deed obtained by the plaintiffs is violative of Section 4(1) of the Act. The total extent of the land available in Sy.No.56 is only 6 acres 12 guntas. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the title of the plaintiffs as well as the identity of the property. In the said circumstances, plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suit for bare injunction without seeking for declaration of his title. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the proposition of law enunciated in the case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR vs. P.BUCHI REDDY (dead) By LRs., & Others, (2008) 4 SCC 594, wherein, it is held that 'Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter."