- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2321 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: MR.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O LATE KEMPANNA, R/AT NO.73-A, HYADALA VILLAGE, DEVENAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 135 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHANABASAPPA MAGADI, ADVOCATE AND SRI. N. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIKASASOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & APPELLATE AUTHORITY TALUKPANCHAYATH, DEVANAHALLI, DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, BEERSANDRA VILLAGE, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-563 110 3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHANNARAYAPATNA GRAM PANCHAYATH, CHANNARAYAPATNA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 135 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1, SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. MANJUNATH KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. XII IN OS NO.845/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL ON IA NO. XII FILED U/O VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the order dated 27.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.XII filed by defendant No.3 i.e., respondent No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of CPC in O.S.No.845/2023 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli (hereinafter - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 referred to as "the Trial Court" for short) whereby, the Trial court has partly allowed I.A.No.XII and consequently, rejected the plaint for not disclosing the clear cause of action in the plaint averments. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court. 3. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to Site bearing Nos.44, 58, 68, 73 and 76, measuring to an extent of 64' x 80', 55' x 80', 65' x 42', 65' x 38' and 45' x 95' respectively, situated at Hydala Village, Chennarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District - 562135 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit schedule properties", for short). 4. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that his father Kempanna owned the suit schedule properties which were contiguous to each other situated within the limits of Channarayapatna Gram Panchayat and after his father's death - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 on 09.09.2016, he succeeded to the same and ever since, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. 5. It is also averred that defendant No.3 had assessed the suit schedule properties for the purpose of taxation and issued Form Nos.9 and 11 in favour of the plaintiff and collected taxes till 2021-22 which itself proved the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. 6. It is further averred that defendant No.3 in the earlier proceedings dated 18.01.2019 has inter alia recommended for change of E-khatha in respect of suit schedule properties in the name of the plaintiff. 7. It is also stated that the father of the plaintiff - Kempanna, during his lifetime, had constructed a dwelling house over the suit schedule property i.e., in site No.76 and that he has been in possession of the same along with other schedule Properties. 8. The plaintiff further stated, such being the scenario, defendant No.3 without issuing any prior notice to the plaintiff had passed a resolution dated 01.06.2022 stating that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 Gram Panchayath has taken a decision to fence and restore the property of the plaintiff by wrongly mentioning khata number as khata No.181 with a wrongful extent of 130 feet X 70 feet, in total measuring to 9100 sq. ft. Defendant No.3 highhandedly without any reason had resolved to encroach the property of the plaintiff by a compound wall. 9. Further, the plaintiff challenged the resolution dated 01.06.2022 before the this Court in W.P.No.11830/2022, which was disposed by this Court on 01.07.2022 reserving liberty to the plaintiff to approach the Competent Appellate Authority as provided under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "1993 Act" for short), in view of the alternative remedy provided under the Section 269 of the 1993 Act. Further, this Court had directed defendant No.3 not to dispossess the plaintiff and not to give effect to the resolution dated 01.06.2022. 10. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred an Appeal before defendant No.2 vide Appeal No.GPA/09/2022-23. Defendant No.2 after hearing the appeal has passed the order dated 12.01.2023 rejecting the appeal in its entirety against the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 plaintiff by invoking Section 58D of the 1993 Act and directed defendant No.3 to enclose the property of the plaintiff by a compound wall. 11. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order passed by defendant No.3, approached this Court in W.P.No.11888/2023, which was disposed of on 13.06.2023 directing the plaintiff to approach the competent Civil Court to redress the grievance. Hence, the plaintiff had approached the Trial Court by filing the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants with respect to suit schedule properties. 12. After service of summons, defendants appeared through their counsel and defendant No.3 has filed an application for Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) read with Section 151 of CPC. However, the said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. 13. The Trial Court, upon perusal of the pleadings of the parties as enumerated in the plaint, I.A.No.XII and objections, framed the following points for consideration: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 "01. Whether the plaint does not disclose the cause of action? 02. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law? 03. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908? 04. What order?" 14. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on assessment of oral submissions and documents placed by both the parties, the Trial Court answered the aforesaid point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative, point No.3 partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative and point No.4 as per the final order and allowed I.A.No.XII filed by defendant No.3 and rejected the plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred the instant appeal. 15. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar for the plaintiff/appellant, the learned AGA for defendant No.1/respondent No.1, the learned counsel Sri. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 M.S Devaraju., for defendant No.2/respondent No.2 and the learned counsel Sri.Manjunath Kandekar., for defendant No.3/respondent No.3. 16. The primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is that the Trial Court has totally erred while allowing I.A.No.XII filed by defendant No.3 for rejection of plaint by misreading the factual aspects of the case, so also the settled position of law by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to dealing of application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC. By emphasising the reasoning of the Trial Court in paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment, learned Senior Counsel submits that while allowing the application, the Trial Court has opined that the plaintiff was claiming title over the suit properties by way of adverse possession, since the suit properties belong to the Government and that the plaint averments were not disclosing the right of the plaintiff to sue against the defendants as he has not disclosed the manner or source of acquisition of right over the suit properties. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 17. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the plaintiff approached this Court in W.P.No.11888/2023 to quash the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Chief Executive Officer and Appellate Authority, Taluka Panchayath, Devanahalli, in Appeal GPA/09/2022-23/101 and in the said petition, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court to redress his grievance since the disputed question of title in respect of the suit schedule properties has to be decided by the competent Civil Court. As such, the plaintiff obtained a clear right to sue against the defendants by filing the civil suit. 18. He further contended that the though it is well settled position of law that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court cannot look into other aspects of the case except the plaint averments, in the case on hand, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the entries effected in the panchayat records in the name of father of the plaintiff one Kempanna can be presumed to be true and genuine, only when the entries are lawful and according to the Trial Court, those entries appeared to be unlawful. This finding - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 of the Trial Court totally goes beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Thus, with this submission, he prays to set aside the order of the Trial Court and to restore the suit. 19. Refuting the above submission, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents vehemently contended that the Trial Court, after meticulously examining the plaint and other documents, has rightly rejected the plaint since the plaint averments do not disclose any cause of action. They also contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 were the Government Authorities and in order to claim adverse possession, the plaintiff has to be in uninterrupted possession for more than 30 years. However, in the case on hand, it is the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit schedule properties from the year 2004. In such circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff has rightly been dismissed by the Trial Court for not disclosing the manner or source of acquisition of right over the suit schedule properties. 20. They further contended that the father of the plaintiff had instituted two suits against defendant No.3 for declaration of title and permanent injunction relating to the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 suit properties and by suppressing the said fact, the plaintiff had instituted the present suit with an ulterior motive to knock off the suit schedule properties. As such, the suit is barred under Section 11 of CPC. Further, the suit instituted by the father of the plaintiff was dismissed as not maintainable for not issuing notice under the provisions of the 1993 Act against defendants in the said suits. Hence, according to the learned counsel, viewed from any angle the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and as such, the order passed by the Trial Court does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the appeal. 21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the Trial Court is justified in allowing I.A.No.XII, thereby rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.845/2023? 22. As regards the first limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant - Government - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 Authorities is not maintainable since the plaintiff is claiming right over the suit schedule properties only by way of adverse possession from the year 2004 is concerned, it could be gathered from records that before filing the suit, the plaintiff approached this Court in W.P.No.11830/2022 challenging the resolution dated 01.06.2022, wherein the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition vide order 01.07.2022 reserving liberty to the plaintiff to approach the Competent Appellate Authority as provided under Section 269 of the 1993 Act. Accordingly, the plaintiff approached defendant No.2 - Chief Executive Officer in Appeal GPA/09/2022-23/101 by challenging the resolution of the Grama Panchayat dated 01.06.2022, which was rejected by defendant No.2 on 12.01.2023 by directing defendant No.3 to enclose the properties of the plaintiff by a compound wall. Thereafter, the plaintiff challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.No.11888/2023, wherein the learned Single Judge has observed that "since disputed questions of title cannot be disputed by any of the Authorities, if the petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved of the action of the Grama Panchayath, he will have - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 to approach the competent Civil Court to redress his grievance". 23. By virtue of the liberty granted by this Court as aforesaid, the plaintiff filed the present suit in O.S.No.845/2023. As such, the contention of the defendants that the suit is not maintainable against the Government Authorities or for non-availability of cause of action/limitation is untenable. Accordingly, the first limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants is liable to be rejected. 24. As regards the second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants that though the father of the plaintiff had already instituted two suits in O.S.Nos.637/2001 and 1097/2003 for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant No.3, the plaintiff suppressing the same filed the present suit and as such the present suit is hit by Section 11 of CPC is concerned, it is to be stated that the said aspect is not forth coming in the plaint averments. However, the defendants put forth the said contention in their written statement. Hence, the said aspect of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 the matter has to be dealt with by the Trial Court after considering the plaint and the written statement averments and if the Trial Court prima facie opines that the present suit is hit by Section 11 of CPC, it is empowered to frame preliminary issue on that aspect. However, the same cannot be considered while dealing with application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Thus, the second limb of argument is also untenable. 25. As regards the other reasoning of the Trial Court for rejection of plaint that the plaint averments do not disclose the manner or source through which the father of the plaintiff namely late Kempanna acquired ownership/possession of the suit properties and the entries of the name of late Kempanna in the panchayath records cannot be presumed to be true since the same appeared to be unlawful, is concerned, on careful perusal of the reasoning of the Trial Court, it could be gathered that the Trial Court exceeded the power while dealing with the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It is settled law by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that while dealing with the application under - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court should look into only the plaint averments. 26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY V/S SYED JALAL - (2017) 13 SCC 174, held that, since the power conferred on the court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to the exercise of power for rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. The question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, since in the instant case, a plea has been raised by the defendants that the present suit is hit by Section 11 of CPC, we are of the view that the Trial Court shall consider the same and if required, frame necessary preliminary issue on that aspect. 27. In the result, we are of the view that, the Trial Court has failed to consider the above aspect as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 while dealing with the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hence, interference in the impugned order is called for. Accordingly, we answer the point raised above in the “negative” and proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The Regular First Appeal is allowed. 2. The Order dated 27.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.XII in O.S.No.845/2023 filed by defendant No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) r/w Section 151 of CPC by the Trial Court is hereby set aside. 3. The suit in O.S.No.845/2023 is restored to its original file. 4. If the Trial Court deems it necessary, after perusing the plaint and written statement averments, may frame a preliminary issue with regard Section 11 of CPC. 5. The parties shall mark their appearance before the Trial Court on 18.09.2025 without expecting any further notice. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32997-DB RFA No. 2321 of 2024 6. The Trial Court is directed to dispose off the suit as early as possible and in accordance with the Karnataka (Case Flow management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005. 7. All the contentions of the parties are left open. 8. No order as to costs. All pending IA's shall stand dismissed. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11