- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24853-DB RFA No. 2300 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2300 OF 2023 (SP) BETWEEN: SYED MUNEER S/O LATE HAJI SYED MUSTAFA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT No.39 BELLAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-56 0064 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. DILLI RAJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MUTHYALAPPA S. S/O LATE MUNIKADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. MUNIYAPPA S. S/O LATE MUNIKADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE MUNIKADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24853-DB RFA No. 2300 of 2023 4. MYTHRI D/O LATE MUNIKADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 5. PADMA S/O LATE MUNIKADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 6. MAHESHA S/O LATE MUNIKADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 7. NAGARAJU S/O LATE MUNIKADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 8. SMT. MUNIHEMAKKA D/O LATE BANGIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 9. SMT. MUNIRATHNA D/O LATE BANGIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 10. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE DODDAHEMANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 11. GANGADHARA S/O DODDAHEMANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 12. AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAHEMANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 13. MADESHA S/O LATE CHIKKAHEMANNA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24853-DB RFA No. 2300 of 2023 14. CHANDRU S/O LATE BANGIYAPPA AND MUNIAKKAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT BELLAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RASHMI GEORGE, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R6, R11 & R13; R3, R4, R5 & R7 ARE SERVED; V.O. DATED 27.09.2024, NOTICE TO R8, R9, R10, R12 & R14 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.09.2023 PASSED ON IA No.II IN OS No.1269/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24853-DB RFA No. 2300 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 2. The only question which requires our consideration in this appeal is whether rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('CPC' for short) was justifiable in the facts of this case. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on the judgments of this Court in RFA No.1766/2013 and contends that the very question whether an agreement for sale would be hit by the provisions of Sections 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL Act' for short) is a question which has to be decided taking note of the facts and circumstances of individual cases and that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was not justified. Learned counsel would also contend that the land in question is not a granted land at all. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24853-DB RFA No. 2300 of 2023 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would, on the other hand, contend that the agreement itself had a clause with regard to obtaining of permission from the Government before sale deed is executed and that the appellant had no case before the trial Court that the land was not a granted land. 5. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that the question whether the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act applies to the agreement in question is a matter which has to be considered by the trial Court and rejection of the plaint at the very inception under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was not justified in the facts of this case. 6. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 04.09.2023 in O.S.No.1269/2022 of the trial Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for consideration of the question whether the PTCL Act would apply to the transaction in question. The trial Court shall take up the said issue as a preliminary issue and pass orders on the same after hearing the parties concerned, preferably, within a period of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24853-DB RFA No. 2300 of 2023 two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Further, till an application filed by the applicant seeking temporary injunction in the suit is considered by the trial Court, status-quo as on today shall remain in force. The temporary injunction application shall also be considered and disposed of without delay. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43