- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4929 CRP No. 100025 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100025 OF 2025 (-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MALLESHAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA UDAGATTI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-591222. 2. SHRI. CHIDANADAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA UDAGATTI, AGE: ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-591222. 3. SHRI. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S/O. PUTTAPPA UDAGATTI, AGE: ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-591222. 4. SHRI. JAVALAMMANAVAR RAMAPPA S/O. MALKAPPA, AGE: ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-591222. 5. SHRI. NAGENDRAPPA S/O. MALKAPPA JAVALAMMANAVAR, AGE: ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-591222. 6. SHRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. PAKKIRAPPA HARANAGIRI, AGE: ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-591222. 7. NARAYANAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA RATI, AGE: ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-591222. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4929 CRP No. 100025 of 2025 8. KARIYAPPA S/O. GUDDAPPA KAMATHARA, AGE: ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARAVI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-591222. 9. SMT. GOURAMMA W/O. LATE SHANTVEERAPPA, AGE: ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-591222. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KANNAPPA S/O. GONEPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HARAVI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 2. JAGADISHA S/O. GONEPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HARAVI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 3. SMT. MUTTAVVA W/O. LATE CHIKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HARAVI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 4. JAYYAPPA S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HARAVI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 5. CHANDRANNA S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HARAVI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 6. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4929 CRP No. 100025 of 2025 7. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI. NINGAPPA S/O. SANGANABASAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 8. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. LATE NINGAPPA, AGE: ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 9. PAKEERAPPA S/O. LATE NAGAPPA, AGE: ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 10. SMT. HONNAVVA D/O. UCHANGAVVA, AGE: ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 11. SRI. PRABHU S/O. BASAVRAJAPPA UDAGATTI, AGE: ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 12. SRI. BASAVA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA HARIJANA, AGE: ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 13. MANJAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA NEELAMMANAVARA, AGE: ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 14. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. GUDDAPPA KAMATHARA, AGE: ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARAVI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-591222. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2025 ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN O.S. NO.68/2019 PASSED BY THE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4929 CRP No. 100025 of 2025 ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUVINAHADAGALI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.1. 2. This revision petition is filed by the defendants No.5, 7, 11 to 18 and 8 challenging the order dated 10.01.2025 on preliminary issue in O.S.No.68/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli1 answering the preliminary issue as additional issue No.1. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by inviting attention of the Court to the prayer made in the plaint and submitted that the suit is 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4929 CRP No. 100025 of 2025 not maintainable as the relief of cancellation of allotment made by the DDLR, Ballari dated 05.02.2002 in favour of the defendants herein has to be challenged under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 and also under the Andhra Pradesh Estate Abolition Act, 1948 and therefore suit is not maintainable before the Trial Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.1 invited attention of the Court to the prayer made in the plaint and submitted that the earlier allotment was made in favour of plaintiffs and thereafter allotment was made in favour of the contesting defendants herein without cancelling the earlier allotment and also the prayer made in the plaint is with regard to seeking the declaratory relief and therefore suit is maintainable and accordingly supports the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the averments made in the plaint particularly, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4929 CRP No. 100025 of 2025 the relief sought for in the plaint is with regard to seeking declaration with consequential relief of restore the possession from the allottees and to deliver the same to the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the relief sought for by the plaintiffs is seeking declaration and therefore, I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly answered the preliminary issue affirmatively holding that the suit is maintainable. Therefore, no interference is called for in this revision petition. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10