- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29156 RSA No. 889 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 889 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: N MOHAN RAO S/O S NEMOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS MERCHANT AND AGRICULTURIST R/O OPPOSITE MATHURA HOTEL GANDHI BAZAR SHIMOGA-577201. APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARVIND C DESAI., ADVOCATE FOR CM DESAI.,ADVOCATE) AND: MOHAMMED RAFIQ S/O LATE ABDUL RASHEED AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O MADARI PALYA SHIMOGA-577201. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK S VAIDYA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SV PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 4.2.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.40/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, I FAST TRACK COURT, SHIMOGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.2.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.59/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, SHIMOG AND ETC., Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29156 RSA No. 889 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal was admitted on 16.06.2023 to consider the following substantial question of law: ‘Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in holding that the suit schedule property is inam land and it is vested in the State after enactment of Inams Abolition Act without affording opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence in that regard?’ 2. The plaintiff is before this Court against concurrent finding in a suit for declaration and injunction, wherein the suit is dismissed on the premise that the suit is not maintainable as the suit property is inam land and vested in the Government. 3. The plaintiff has sought declaration of title in respect of property bearing survey No.118 and re-numbered - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29156 RSA No. 889 of 2013 as 339/1 of Uragadur Village, Nidge Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk and District to the extent of 1 acre. 4. The plaintiff claimed ownership over the land on the basis of sale deed said to have been executed in his favour on 05.12.1968. The plaintiff further claims that the land was re-granted to his vendor. 5. The defendant No.1 took a stand that the land is re-granted to the defendant No.1 on 30.08.1969. Defendant No.1 contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of a regrant of land in his favour. 6. Issue No.4 framed was treated as preliminary issue. 7. The Court has come to the conclusion that the property is granted to defendant under the order dated 30.08.1969 in survey No.339 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas. The Court has also come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not filed any application seeking re-grant. Accordingly, without any evidence has held that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29156 RSA No. 889 of 2013 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff - appellant would submit that if the property is re-granted to the plaintiff’s vendor then the suit is maintainable. It is also his further submission that re-grant claimed by the defendant No.1 is not in respect of the part of the suit property. It is urged that all these questions are to be decided after permitting the parties to lead evidence to substantiate their contentions. 9. It is also urged by way of an alternative contention that the subject land does not fall under the purview of the Inam Abolition Act. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent – defendant No.1 would submit that the re-grant order in favour of the defendant No.1 is produced and based on that, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the First Appellate Court has rightly concurred with the finding of the Trial Court. 11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. Admittedly, the suit is one for declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiff has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29156 RSA No. 889 of 2013 not questioned the validity of the re-grant order in favour of defendant as claimed by defendant. (i) Whether the property is re-granted to the plaintiff’s vendor or whether the property is re-granted to the defendant No.1 is a question of fact, which has to be adjudicated after considering the evidence to be led by the parties. (ii) Whether suit property and the property said to have been granted to the defendant No.1 are one and the same or they defer entirely or partially have to be adjudicated after trial. 12. Since, it is also urged by way of alternative contention that the land is not falling under the purview of the Inam Abolition Act, the suit could not have been disposed of on preliminary issue. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29156 RSA No. 889 of 2013 13. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part; (ii) The judgment and decree dated 04.02.2013 in RA.No.40/2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court-1, Shivamogga and the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2012 in OS.No.59/2011 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga are set aside; (iii) The matter is remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to permit the parties to lead their evidence on all issues and to later record the findings of the parties on all issues to dispose of the matter in accordance with law; (iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. (v) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 28.08.2025 without any further notice from the Trial Court; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29156 RSA No. 889 of 2013 (vi) All contentions of the parties are left open; (vii) Registry to sent back the records of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court forthwith. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45