- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2024 (RO) BETWEEN: KAUSALYA BAI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1. S.K. JAGANNATHA RAO SALGHUR, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, S/O. LATE SMT. KAUSALYA BAI, R/AT. NO.972, 4TH E BLOCK, 10TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010 2. S.K. JANARDHANA RAO SALGHUR, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, D/O. LATE SMT. KAUSALYA BAI R/AT NO.972, 4TH E BLOCK, 10TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010 3. SMT. S.K. SUGUNA BAI SALGHUR, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, D/O LATE SMT KAUSALYA BAI, R/AT. NO.972, 4TH E BLOCK, 10TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010 4. SMT S.K. SUNANDA AGED 70 YEARS D/O LATE B.S. KRISHNOJI RAO W/O LATE SURENDRA RAO R/AT NO.1176, HIG, 2ND MAIN ROAD, ARAVINDANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 023. 5. S.K. SHIVAJI RAO SALGHUR, Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 AGED 68 YEARS, S/O LATE B.S. KRISHNOJI RAO R/AT NO.972, 4TH E BLOCK 10TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010 6. SHASTRI KUMAR SALGHUR, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE B.S. KRISHNOJI RAO R/AT NO.4925, 53RD AVENUE WEST APARTMENT, V-301 UNIVERSITY PLACE, WASHINGTON - 984467, UNITED STATE OF AMERICA …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANANTHA NARAYANA B.N., ADVOCATE) AND: T.V. MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O VENKATAPPA R/O THARALU VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 061 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(U) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.53/2016 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2014 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.1031/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 BANGALORE, AND REMANDED BACK THE MATTER TO THE TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OF THE SUIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS MSA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants being the defendants in OS.No.1031/2012 on the file of the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') are seeking to set-aside the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2024, passed in RA No.53/2016, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court) by allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Trial Court. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff filed the suit OS.No.1031/2012 before the Trial Court against the defendant seeking declaration and injunction in respect of two items of properties described in the schedule as agricultural - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 lands. It is the contention of plaintiff before the Trial Court that his father Venkatappa was a tenant in respect of the schedule properties and he filed an application under Mysore (Religions & Charitable) Inam Abolition Act, 1955 for grant of occupancy right. Accordingly, occupancy right was granted in favour of Venkatappa, and his name was mutated in the revenue records. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that, his father Venkatappa died on 20.02.1982 and thereafter, plaintiff being the son, acquired absolute right and title over the schedule properties. It is contended by the plaintiff that Venkatappa during his lifetime had never sold the schedule properties in favour of any third parties and even if he had sold the same, if is not binding on him. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for declaration and possession of the schedule property. 4. Defendant has appeared before the Trial Court and filed the written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff and contended that, the property in question was the absolute property of one Lakshmaiah, who sold it in favour of the father of the plaintiff by name Venkatappa under the registered sale deed dated 07.09.1958. Subsequently, said Venkatappa sold the property in favour of one Muniyappa under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 the sale deed dated 18.05.1960. From Muniyappa, the property was purchased by Subba Reddy under the sale deed dated 01.11.1960. Subba Reddy in turn sold it in favour of one T.M.Shanmugam under the registered sale deed dated 23.09.1985. The said Shanmugam sold the property in favour of defendant Smt.Kausalya Bai under the sale deed dated 22.01.1992. After purchase of the property, mutation was effected in the name of the defendant. The land was converted into non-agricultural one, and the khatha stands in the name of the defendant. 5. The defendant has also taken up the contention that, the plaintiff had filed an application under the provisions of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (for short ' the Act') and sought for resumption of land. In the said application, it is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant is the signatory to various sale deeds referred to above and thereby he has sought for annulment of sale deeds. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application and ordered resumption of land annulling the various registered sale deeds. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant had approached the Special Deputy - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 Commissioner. The said appeal came to be allowed, and the order of Assistant Commissioner was set aside and the sale deeds were restored. It is stated that, the plaintiff had preferred the writ petition before this Court, challenging the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. The said writ petition came to be dismissed. Therefore, it is contended that the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts while approaching the Trial Court seeking declaration and possession of the property, without referring to any of these proceedings. 6. The defendant has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC praying to reject the plaint, as there is no cause of action for plaintiff to seek declaration and possession of the schedule properties. The Trial Court after taking into consideration the rival contentions, allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The same was challenged by the plaintiff in RA No.53/2016, the First Appellate Court passed the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2024 allowing the appeal, restoring the plaint, directing the Trial Court to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 7. Heard Sri Anantha Narayana B N, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Abhishek Patil, learned counsel for Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 8. In the light of rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under: "Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and needs interference by this Court ?" My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has produced certain documents which disclose that, the plaintiff-respondent had approached the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division contending that, his father Venkatappa had alienated the property in question in favour of third parties in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 violation of non alienation clause for a period of 15 years, and also in violation of Section 4 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner has held an enquiry in No.K.SC.ST(S).47/2000- 01 and held that, the alienation made by Venkatappa - the father of the respondent-plaintiff was illegal, and ordered the Tahsildar to initiate proceedings for resumption of land. 10. Being aggrieved by the same the defendant- appellants herein have approached the Special Deputy Commissioner. The Special Deputy Commissioner in the proceedings No.SC.ST(A).13/2004-05 reconsidered the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appeal vide order dated 17.11.2004. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff- respondent approached this Court by filing WP No.14666/2005. Similar writ petition was also filed by the third parties in WP No.14663/2005. Both these writ petitions were considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the same were dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2008. A categorical finding was recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the land in respect of which the occupancy right was granted in favour of Venkatappa -the father of the plaintiff-respondent - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 cannot be construed as a granted land under the provisions of the Act. It is stated that, this order dated 12.08.2008 was challenged before the Division Bench by preferring the writ appeal, and even the writ appeal came to be dismissed. It is thereafter, the suit OS.No.1031/2012 came to be filed by the plaintiff-respondent, seeking declaration and for possession. It is pertinent to note that none of these facts or documents are denied by the respondent - plaintiff. 12. It is to be noticed that, before the Assistant Commissioner, the specific contention raised by the plaintiff is that, even though the land in question was granted in favour of his father Venkatappa, he alienated the same in favour of the third parties and the same is void. In the plaint in OS.No.1031/2012, the plaintiff asserted that his father Venkatappa has never sold the schedule properties or any portion thereof in favour of any of the third parties, much less in favour of the defendant. Therefore, it is contended that, the defendant has no manner of right, title or interest, much less the possession over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendant is stranger to the suit property. It is also alleged that the defendant seems to have acquired interest in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 respect of the suit schedule properties through Subba Reddy and T.M.Shanmugam, who are also utter strangers to the suit schedule properties. It is pertinent to note that, the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that, on verification of the encumbrance certificate, he came to know that the plaintiff acquired title over the property and therefore, sought for declaration and possession of the properties. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is the contention of the defendant-appellant that, there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to present the suit. Hence, the plaint is to be rejected. 13. In column No.11 of the plaint, the plaintiff- respondent contended that, the cause of action for the suit arose on the last week of July 2012, when the plaintiff came to know about illegal possession of the suit schedule properties by the defendant. Prima Facie this allegation is false as since 2004 the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, then before the Special Deputy Commissioner and then before this Court was pending and finally the claim of the plaintiff was rejected. All those proceedings were initiated against the appellant-defendant. Therefore, it is clear that, there is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 deliberate suppression of material facts by the plaintiff while filing the suit. 14. In the plaint it is contended by the plaintiff that, on verification of the encumbrance certificate he came to know about the transaction and acquiring interest by the plaintiff through Subba Reddy and T.M.Shanmugam. It is brought to the notice of the Court that Venkatappa -the father of the plaintiff sold the property in favour of one Muniyappa under the registered sale deed dated 18.05.1960, who in turn sold it in favour of Subba Reddy, Subba Reddy again sold it in favour of T.M.Shanmugam, who sold the property in favour of the defendant under the registered sale deed dated 22.01.1992. The mutation was effected in the name of the defendant who obtained an order converting the land for non-agricultural purposes and the khatha stands in his name. Suppressing all these facts, the plaintiff has approached the Trial Court seeking declaration and possession without seeking any declaration with regard to the sale deeds referred to above. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not produced any revenue records standing in his name. In view of all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that, there was not only suppression of material facts - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 by the plaintiff which was deliberately made to hoodwink the Court and to get an order, but there was no cause of action to file and maintain the suit. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court rightly allowed the application filed by the appellant- defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and rejected the plaint. 15. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court. It has mislead itself in proceeding to allow the appeal and restoring the suit solely on the ground that, only the allegations made in the plaint is to be taken into consideration, ignoring the averments made in the plaint which itself shows that there was no cause of action for the plaint. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 27.02.2024, passed in RA No.53/2016, on the file of the learned II - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41172 MSA No. 66 of 2024 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District hereby, set aside. (iii) The Judgment and decree dated 22.08.2014 passed in OS.No.1031/2012 on the file of the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore is restored. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11