- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45574 CRP No. 614 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.614 OF 2018 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. G KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH @ GANGA GOVINDAIAH AGE :49 YEARS 2. RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH @ GANGA GOVINDAIAH AGED :43 YEARS, BOTH R/O DEVARAYAPATNA KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DIST. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI HARISH.N.R FOR SRI PATEL D KARE GOWDA, ADVOCATES) AND: CHINNALINGAIAH DEAD BY LRS 1. SMT GANGAMMA W/O LATE CHINNALINGAIAH AGE : 68 YEARS, 2. MAHADEVAMURTHY S/O LATE CHINNALINGAIAH AGE : 52 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45574 CRP No. 614 of 2018 3. MALLIKARJUNAMURTHY S/O LATE CHINNALINGAIAH AGE 48 YEARS, 4. POORNESHA S/O LATE CHINNALINGAIAH AGE 52 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE R/O BANDEPALYA -572 103 KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 6. TAHSILDAR TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU – 572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.GOVINDARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R5 AND R6) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.1090/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45574 CRP No. 614 of 2018 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Harish N.R., learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. 2. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.1090/2014, on the file of V Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC., Tumkur, is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed on the application filed by him in the said suit under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 4. A suit came to be filed by the respondents/plaintiffs on the following relief in respect of following property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). PRAYER “Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff against the defendants. i) For declaring that the title has been conferred upon the plaintiff by way of adverse possession and enjoyment of the suit property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45574 CRP No. 614 of 2018 ii) For such other reliefs and cost as the Hon’ble court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” SCHEDULE Dry land bearing Sy. No.23/P30, assessed at Rs.1.00, measuring about 1.07 guntas situated at Pandithanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakukru Taluk bounded as follows: EAST : Halla and Land of Kumbaiah WEST : Kharab Halla NORTH : Oni SOUTH : Land of Thimmaiah” 5. Cause of action paragraph in the suit reads as under: “That the cause of action for the suit arose about two years ago, after the completion of 30 years of possession and enjoyment of the suit property of the plaintiff and against the adverse interest and hostile possession since more than 30 years of the plaintiff and subsequently about two days ago when the defendants have attempted to interfere which is peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45574 CRP No. 614 of 2018 6. Admittedly after the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘PTCL Act’ for short) came into force, the defendant Nos.3 and 4 have sold the suit property in utter violation of the provisions of the said Act to the plaintiff. 7. Plaintiff is now seeking to protect his possession over the suit property. 8. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered their appearance and defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 have filed their written statement and also an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure contending that in respect of property sold by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons in favour of a third party within the period of non-alienation, Civil Court has no jurisdiction and sought for rejection of the plaint. 9. Plaintiff objected the said application by contending that decision of this Court reported in the case of Smt. Mangalagowramma vs. State of Karnataka by its Secretary reported in ILR 2017 Karnataka 5503 would be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45574 CRP No. 614 of 2018 sufficient enough to continue with the suit. Therefore, the application was sought to be rejected. 10. Learned trial Judge after taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, by virtue of the impugned order, dismissed the application noting the non-abstante clause in Section 4 of the said Act and has opined that the application needs to be rejected and proceeded with the suit. 11. The validity of the said order is called in question in this revision petition. 12. Sri Harish N.R., learned counsel for the petitioners contended that plaintiff cannot take advantage of adverse possession in view of Section 4 of the Act. Since the suit is filed by the plaintiff within 30 years, he cannot claim adverse possession and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the order of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sukara Rajyalakshmi vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1987 KAR 2076. 14. Relevant portion of the said order at para 2 reads as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45574 CRP No. 614 of 2018 “We may also make it clear that so far as the second exception laid down by us in our judgment dated 17-4-1984, is concerned, namely, that the karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 will not apply where the transferees have perfected their title in the granted land by prescription of long and continuous enjoyment before the commencement of the Act, the period of limitation which has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the title has been perfected by prescription is that which runs against the State Government and therefore, it would be 30 years and not 12 years.” 15. He would also contend that in a subsequent development, the possession has been handed over to the revision petitioners by the Competent Authority under the PTCL., proceedings. Therefore suit is to be dismissed. 16. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 are absent. 17. There cannot be any dispute as to the principle of law enunciated in the case of Sunkara Rajyalakshmi supra. But, the limitation of 30 years against the Government seeking adverse possession and for the private person limitation is of 12 years. Therefore, that aspect cannot be taken into consideration in the case on hand. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45574 CRP No. 614 of 2018 18. If the possession of the suit property has been handed over, the revision petitioners may bring it to the notice of the trial Court and file appropriate application to dismiss the suit. 19. With that liberty to the petitioners, following order is passed: ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR