- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2401 RFA No. 200130 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200130 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SOMESH S/O MADIVALAYYA HIREMATH AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: DADAMATTI, TQ: VIJAYAPURA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REVANASIDDESHWARA SWAMIJI AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: MATHADIPATHI SHIVAYOGA ASHRAM, KALENHALLI, POST: SAVOOR, TQ: SHIKARIPURA, DIST: SHIMOGA. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER KNL IPC ZONE, KALABURAGI – 585 102. 3. SHIVALINGAPPA BASAVANNA AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2401 RFA No. 200130 of 2024 R/O: KURIKOTA, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. 4. SANGANNA S/O MAHARUDRAPPA TILASHETTY, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: RTD. GOVT. SERVANT, R/O: KURIKOTA, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. 5. SHIVANAND S/O VEERABHADRAYYA MATHAPATHI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT PDO, R/O: KURIKOTA, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. 6. RAMESH S/O DUNDAPPA SHAANI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KURIKOTA, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. 7. BASAWARAJ S/O SANGAPPA KALYANI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KURIKOTA, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. 8. NAGARAJ S/O CHANDRAKANTH MADIKAL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KURIKOTA, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2401 RFA No. 200130 of 2024 9. SHARANABASAPPA S/O SHANKRAPPA BASAVAN, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KURIKOTA, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. 10. SIDDRAM S/O GURUSHANTAPPA YUANI, AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KURIKOTA, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. 11. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O VEERUPALSHAPPA MALKHED, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE, R/O: KURIKOTA, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. 12. SHARANABASAPPA S/O BASAVANAPPA CHIKNAGAON, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KURIKOTA, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. 13. MALLIKARJUN BASAVAN AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: RTD., GRAM PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, R/O: KURIKOTA, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R13; R1, R2 ARE SERVED) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2401 RFA No. 200130 of 2024 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ALLOWING I.A.NO.14 REJECTING THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.247 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KALABURAGI, DATED 18.04.2024, AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE I.A.NO.14, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal is arising from the order allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘Code’). 3. Suit is filed for declaration of title over the suit schedule property and a declaration of title that the plaintiff is the Matadipathi of Mutt and also declaration that plaintiff is entitled to compensation awarded in favour of suit schedule property and consequential relief of injunction. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2401 RFA No. 200130 of 2024 4. Defendant No.4 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of the Code to reject the plaint on the premise that the suit is not maintainable before the Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi. Defendant No.4 contended that the suit property being the Trust property, the suit has to be filed under Section 92 of the Code before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. 5. The plaintiff opposed the said application. The Trial Court overruled the objections of the plaintiff and accepted the contention of defendant No.4 by allowing the said application, and rejected the plaint. 6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the plaintiff is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff / appellant would contend that the relief sought in the plaint does not come under any of the Clauses in Section 92 of the Code, as such, the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the plaint by allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code. It is submitted that the plaintiff has never claimed that the suit property is the Trust property. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2401 RFA No. 200130 of 2024 Under these circumstances, Section 92 of the Code is not attracted. 8. Learned counsel for defendant No.4 / respondent No.4 would contend that the suit property is the Trust property and Section 92 of the Code is attracted in respect of Trust property. The Trial Court is justified in allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records and also the plaint averments. 10. It is noticed from the plaint averments that the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property on the premise that, originally the suit property belonged to one Chennaveer Devaru Shivalingeshwar Math of Kurikota Village and earlier to him, one Veerayya son of Mallayya was pattedar of the suit schedule property and Veerayya son of Mallayya appointed Basalingayya Swamy son of Guruveerapasha Swamy as his disciple and later, the property was mutated in the name of Basalingayya Swamy son of Guruveerapasha Swamy in terms of the order passed by the Tahsildar, Kalaburagi. Later, in terms of the Court order, name of the Basalingayya Swamy was entered as per the decree passed in O.S No.90/1973. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2401 RFA No. 200130 of 2024 plaintiff further claims Basalingayya Swamy son of Guruveerapasha Swamy appointed Chennaveera Devaru Shivalingeshwar Math as his disciple and further authorized him to succeed to the estate and also Mutt, and pursuant to that Chennaveera Devaru Shivalingeshwar Math succeeded to the estate and he became the Matadipathi of said Mutt and later, the name of Chennaveera Devaru Shivalingeshwar Math is entered in the property records. 11. It is further stated that Chennaveera Devaru Shivalingeshwar Math became Peetadipathi of the Mutt and succeeded to the estate of the Mutt. 12. It is further stated that defendant No.2 acquired the property of the Mutt for a government project and dispute relating to the compensation is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi. 13. The plaintiff claims that Chennaveera Devaru Shivalingeshwar Math passed away on 05.01.2016 and he has executed a Will on 07.08.2015 in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff claimed title over the property based on the alleged Will. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2401 RFA No. 200130 of 2024 14. Section 92 of the Code provides for exclusive jurisdiction of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in respect of matter covered under said Section 92 of the Code. The prayer made in the plaint is relating to the declaration of the title relating to the suit property and declaration of status as Peetadipathi and also for declaration in respect of compensation amount claimed. 15. It is defendant No.4, who has taken the contention that property is the Trust property and the suit is not maintainable before the Senior Civil Judge. 16. From the plaint averments it is not possible to hold that the plaintiff has claimed that the suit property is a Trust property. Plaintiff claimed succession based on the Will. The plain reading of the plaint would suggest that the suit is not in respect of the relief available under Section 92 of the Code. 17. Whether declaration of status as Peetadipathi of the Mutt which is sought in the plaint amounts to appointing a Trustee has to be decided with reference to constitution/ bye-law of the Trust, if any. It is also stated that the Trust which the defendants are alleging has come into existence in 2017 whereas the plaintiff is claiming a right under the Will - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2401 RFA No. 200130 of 2024 which was executed prior to the creation of alleged Trust. These aspects have to be considered at the time of trial. 18. Hence, the liberty is reserved to the defendants to raise the contention relating to Section 92 of the Code and same has to be considered after full fledged trial. 19. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that contention raised in the written statement could not have any basis to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code. The contention raised in the written statement requires trial. The Trial Court did not notice the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code and the requirement under Section 92 of the Code. Hence, the impugned order / decree is not sustainable. 20. Hence the following i) The appeal is allowed. ii) Impugned order / decree dated 18.04.2024 in O.S No.247/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi is set aside. iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2401 RFA No. 200130 of 2024 iv) In case, the Trial Court finds that any of the prayers made in the plaint fall under Section 92 of the Code, the Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law and thereafter, shall pass appropriate orders. v) In case, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the prayers or any of the prayer made in the plaint do not come under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code, the Trial Court has to decide the suit on merits. vi) It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the rival contentions of both parties. vii) All contentions kept open. viii) No orders on cost. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41