- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32593-DB RFA No. 849 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH 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. 849 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. M. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/AT No.97, A.K. COLONY BEGUR VILLAGE BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 068 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.R. RAJASHEKHARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA ALIAS MUNINARAYANAMMA D/O LATE DASAMMA AND LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT No.69, 2ND MAIN ROAD 3RD CROSS, ANGANAWADI KENDRA AMBEDKAR COLONY DODDANEKKUNDI BENGALURU-560 037 2. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE DASAMMA AND LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32593-DB RFA No. 849 of 2024 R/AT No.84 , 2ND MAIN ROAD 3RD CROSS, ANGANAWADI KENDRA AMBEDKAR COLONY DODDANEKKUNDI BENGALURU-560 037 3. SMT. NAGU N. ALIAS NAGAMMA S/O LATE DASAMMA AND LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT No.32, 2ND MAIN ROAD 3RD CROSS, ANGANAWADI KENDRA AMBEDKAR COLONY DODDANEKKUNDI BENGALURU-560 037 4. SRI. RAJAPPA S/O LATE DASAMMA AND LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 5. SRI. R. KUMAR S/O RAJAPPA N. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 6. SMT. APARNA D/O N. RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESPONDENTS No.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT No.32, 2ND MAIN ROAD 5TH CROSS, ANGANAWADI KENDRA AMBEDKAR COLONY DODDANEKKUNDI BENGALURU-560 037 7. SRI. S.V. SRINIVAS S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT No.58, SULIKUNTE VILLAGE DOMMASANDRA POST - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32593-DB RFA No. 849 of 2024 VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-562 125 8. SRI. ROHIT KUMAR V. S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT No.72, 2ND CROSS OPP. TO PETROL BUNK SULIKUNTE VILLAGE DOMMASANDRA POST VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-562 125 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANTH M.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6; R7 & R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.03.2024 PASSED ON IA No.IV IN OS No.1216/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA No.IV FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32593-DB RFA No. 849 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.1216/2020 rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the appellant herein seeks the following relief:- Wherefore, the appellant prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records, hear the parties and set aside the order dated 15.03.2024, made by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, on IA No.4 in OS No.1216/2020 on his file by which he has rejected the plaint in the said original suit by allowing this appeal and further be pleased to dismiss the said IA No.4, filed by the respondent Nos.4 to 6/defendant Nos.4 to 6, in the said original suit, in the interest of justice and equity. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32593-DB RFA No. 849 of 2024 3. It was the specific case of the appellant that the schedule property originally belonging to Sri. Narayanappa, S/o Sri. A.K. Thimmaiah, in whose favour the schedule property was granted under Darakasthu on 10.11.1955. A sale deed was executed by Sri. Narayanappa in favour of one Smt. Yellamma, W/o. Channappa on 23.09.1960. The said Smt. Yellamma, sold the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, as per the sale deed, dated 17.01.1972. Long thereafter, defendant No.4 in the suit, who is respondent No.4 had filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru in case No.KSC ST/131/2007-08 seeking restoration of land under Section 5 of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('KPTCL Act' for short). The Assistant Commissioner, by an order dated 01.04.2008, had allowed the application and declared the sale deeds executed in 1960 and 1972 to be null and void and directed respondent No.4 to be put in possession of the schedule property. An appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Begnaluru, by the plaintiff which is also rejected by an order dated 23.02.2012. A writ petition was filed by the plaintiff as W.P - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32593-DB RFA No. 849 of 2024 No.16679/2012(SC-ST) which was allowed by judgment dated 19.02.2020. The orders made by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were set aside and the plaintiff was directed to be put in possession of the schedule property. It is submitted that the said judgment has became final and no appeal has been preferred therefrom. However, even thereafter, the defendants No.1 to 6, had entered into an agreement to sell the schedule property in favour of defendants No.7 and 8 which necessitated the filing of the suit. On an application preferred by defendant No.4 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short), the trial Court found that the property in question was granted land and the issue was with regard to sale of the property in question and that the suit was therefore barred by the provisions of the KPTCL Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the question with regard to the applicability of the KPTCL Act and the restoration of the property to respondents No.1 to 6 has already been decided by this Court in W.P.No.16679/2012(SC- ST). It is submitted that once the orders of restoration are - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32593-DB RFA No. 849 of 2024 found to be invalid, the result is that the sale deeds executed in 1960 and 1972 would be valid and enforceable. 5. In the above view of the matter, it is submitted that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the suit was hit by the provisions of the KPTCL Act is completely unwarranted and misconceived. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submits that there is an amendment effected to the KPTCL Act which specifically states that there is no limitation provided for making an application under Section 5 of the KPTCL Act and that the respondents would therefore be entitled to restoration of the property under provisions of the KPTCL Act. 7. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the question with regard to restoration under the KPTCL Act has been considered by this Court by its order dated 19.02.2020 in W.P No.16679/2012(SC-ST) 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said order has become final and that no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32593-DB RFA No. 849 of 2024 appeal has been preferred therefore. This is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. If that be so, we are of the opinion that the question with regard to the restoration stands settled in favour of the appellant. 9. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the finding entered by the trial Court that the suit was not maintainable on account of the provisions of the KPTCL Act cannot be accepted. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is unwarranted. The suit has to be decided on merits. 10. In the result:- (i) The order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.1216/2020 is therefore set-aside. The suit is restored to file. (ii) The party shall appear before the trial Court without awaiting further notice on 10.09.2025. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32593-DB RFA No. 849 of 2024 (iii) In case, the respondents appear before the trial Court and requests a chance to file a written statement, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14