- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100155 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MURUDEVI @ MUDEVI W/O. BHIMAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330. 2. BHIMAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT – 587 330. 3. TAMMANNA S/O. PADMANNA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330. 4. BALURAI S/O. SHANTAPAP JAMKHANDI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330. 5. PADMANNA S/O. SHANTAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330. 6. JINAPPA S/O. BALAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023 7. BALAPPA S/O. JINAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330. 8. SMT. BALAWWA W/O. BHIMAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SIDDAPPA S/O. NYAMANAN JAMKHANDI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330, REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER RAMESH S/O. SIDDAPPA JAMKHANDI, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2023 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI, ON IA NO.1 IN OS NO.16/2023 AND ALLOW IA NO.1 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BY REJECTING THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.16/2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This petition is by the defendant Nos.1 to 8 aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2023 passed in OS No.16/2023 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi (for short, ‘Trial Court’), by which the application filed by petitioners herein under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) came to be rejected. 2. Plaintiff/respondent herein filed the above suit seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit land belongs to the family of the plaintiff and it is an ancestral property of the plaintiff’s family. The father of the plaintiff one Nyamanna was the absolute owner being in possession and enjoyment of the same during his lifetime. The revenue records stood in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023 his name. Upon his demise, the plaintiff succeeded to the suit property and continued to the possession and enjoyment of the same. That the father of the plaintiff Nyamanna was not having sound mind of disposal. During his lifetime, he used to lease out the suit land to others to meet his financial requirements. That from the year 1950 onwards as per the previous records name of said Nayamanna continued in the owners in the record of rights and in the year 1966 his name was deleted vide M.E.No.3647 of Savalagi village. The said mutation entries were created behind the back and in collusion with the revenue officials thereby name of one deceased Kallappa was entered in the revenue records. The said Kallappa was no way concerned with the family of the plaintiff or his predecessors. Defendants in furtherance of the said entries were asserting rights over the suit property creating clouds over the title of the plaintiff and also trying to forcibly entered upon the suit property causing disturbance in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023 3. An application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by defendant No.5, primarily seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had admitted that the name of predecessor of defendant by name Kallappa, had been mutated in the revenue records in respect of suit property. The said revenue entries were of the year 1966 and the suit is filed in the year 2023 i.e., after the expiry of more than five and half decades and as such the suit is barred by limitation. Objection statements to the said application came to be filed. The trial Court on consideration of the application and the objection filed by the respondent – plaintiff, by the impugned order rejected the application. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent – plaintiff himself at paragraph No.6 of the plaint unequivocally averred that the revenue entries were made by deleting the name of his father and substituting the name of one Kallappa, back in the year 1966 and the suit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023 having been filed in the year 2023, an inference has to be drawn regarding the plaintiff having had the knowledge of these changes in the revenue entries. That the trial Court however has found that the said aspect of the matter is mixed question of fact and law requiring trial, which is erroneous. As such he seeks for setting aside the impugned order and to allow the petition. 5. Heard. Perused the records. 6. The application seeking rejection of plaint is filed solely on the basis of the averments made in paragraph No.6 of the plant, in which, the plaintiff has stated that during the year 1950 and even prior to thereof the name of Nyamanna continued to reflect in the revenue records and in the year 1966, the name of Nyamanna was deleted and the name of Kallappa has been entered into the revenue records. However, at paragraph No.8, the plaintiff has pleaded that recently it was ascertained that the surname of the families of plaintiff and the defendants is one and the same and the names of the predecessor of the plaintiff and defendants are - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023 also one and the same, as such the name of the predecessor of defendants was entered in the revenue records and was continued. That after ascertaining the said mistake of fact in the revenue records, the plaintiff approached the defendant for rectification, but they protracted the matter for one or the other reason. As such the plaintiff approached the revenue Court by initiating proceedings in RTS Revision No.20/2019, which was dismissed on 01.04.2021 directing the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. Accordingly, the suit was filed. 7. The Trial Court taking a note of this aspect of the matter rejected the application. Plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint that he had the knowledge of such change of revenue entries either in the year 1966 or subsequent thereof. 8. As rightly taken note of by the Trial Court even if there was a delay in filing the suit, considering averments made in the plaint, the said issue needs to be thrashed in a trial, as the same is one of mixed questions of law and fact. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023 9. No irregularity or illegality can be found with the order passed by the Trial Court. The petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SMM-para 1 to 3 VNP – para 4 to end / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11