HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9635 WP No. 19820 of 2021 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.19820 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. JANARDHAN VARMA SINCE DECEASED PARVATHI AMMA C. H. W/O. LATE JANARDHAN VERMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2. C. H. RADHAKRISHNA BALLAL S/O. LATE JANARDHAN VERMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 3. C. H. JAYARAMA BALLAL S/O. LATE JANARDHAN VERMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4. MAHESH KUMAR C. H. S/O. LATE JANARDHAN VERMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT VITTAL PALACE, POST VITTAL, BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 243 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9635 WP No. 19820 of 2021 -2- AND: 1. MR. M. MOHANDAS NAYAK SINCE DECEASED SUMITHRA W/O. LATE M. MOHANDAS NAYAK MAJOR 2. YASHODA D/O. LATE M. MOHANDAS NAYAK MAJOR 3. HARISH NAYAK S/O. LATE M. MOHANDAS NAYAK MAJOR 4. VATHSALA D/O. LATE SRI M. MOHANDAS NAYAK MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT VITLA, VITLA KASABA VILLAGE, VITLA POST BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 243 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.06.2021 IN O.S.NO.158/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9635 WP No. 19820 of 2021 -3- ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to challenge an order dated 07.06.2021 in O.S.No.158/2011 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”). 2. This Court, had after hearing the parties on 07.01.2026, passed the following order: “1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking to challenge an order dated 07.06.2021 in O.S.No.158/2011 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”). By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has directed the transfer of O.S.No.158/2011 to the court of the Tahasildar, Bantwal, who is the competent authority under the Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulageni or Volamulageni Tenants Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “Mulageni Act”). 2. The brief fact are that petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and other reliefs before the Trial Court. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he is the co-owner of the suit schedule property and the respondent/defendant is a tenant therein. The Learned Trial Court framed Issues of which an additional issues No.1 and 2 was framed as to whether the suit is maintainable in view of the Mulageni Act as follows: “1. Whether suit is not maintainable in view of provision of “The Conferment of Ownership on Mulageni or volamulageni Tenants Act, 2011? HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9635 WP No. 19820 of 2021 -4- 2. Whether defendant proves that this court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit?” 3. The Additional Issue No.1 was treated as the preliminary issue by the learned Trial Court and the preliminary issue were heard and decided by the learned Trial Court. As stated above, by the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has found that in terms of Section 10 of the Mulageni Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. 4. Section 10 of the Mulageni Act provides a bar on the Civil Court deciding matters under the Mulageni Act, while sub-section (2) of the section 10 provides that pending proceedings be transferred to the authority appointed under the Mulageni Act on the date of the Mulageni Act for the following: “10. Bar of jurisdiction.-(1) Except as provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the competent authority or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be. (2) All pending proceedings on the date of commencement of this Act shall stand transferred to the competent authority who shall decide the same as if they were filed before him under Section 5. [Emphasis supplied] 5. It is not disputed by the parties that the Act is applicable to the land in issue as well as the parties. In view thereof, the learned Trial Court has transferred the matter in terms of Section 10(2) of the Mulageni Act.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has raised two grounds of challenge to the Impugned Order. He submits that the Karnataka Conferment of Ownership HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9635 WP No. 19820 of 2021 -5- on Mulageni or Volamulageni Tenants Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “Mulageni Act”) was the subject matter of challenge before this Court and this Court had by an order dated 08.12.2021 granted interim stay of the Impugned Order. Secondly, it is contended that the provisions of the Mulageni Act are not applicable to the petitioners/plaintiffs in view of Section 5 of the Mulageni Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants, on the other hand, contend that insofar as the challenge to the Mulageni Act itself is concerned, the same was dismissed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court upholding the Mulageni Act. The order of dismissal was challenged in a batch of matters including W.A.No.725/2023 captioned Mr.Peter J.R.Prabhu Vs. the State of Karnataka and others. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 31.07.2023 directed that the parties shall maintain status quo till further orders of the Court. The record reflects that the appeal is pending disposal before the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9635 WP No. 19820 of 2021 -6- Division Bench. This Court, however granted no interim order staying the validity of the Mulageni Act. 4.1. In addition, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that as was set out in the order of 07.01.2026, there is no dispute between the parties that the Land Act is applicable to the land in issue. In addition, he seeks to rely upon paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court wherein it is admitted that the petitioners/plaintiffs have obtained rights to the property by virtue of a registered mulageni chit (23.03.1985). Thus, it is contended that there cannot be any dispute on the applicability of the Act to the petitioners/plaintiffs. 4.2. It is further contended that the respondents/ defendants had made an application on 28.12.2016 under Section 5 of the Mulageni Act. Thus, it is submitted that in terms of the proviso to Section 10 of the Mulageni Act, the matter should be heard and decided by the authority appointed under the Mulageni Act. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9635 WP No. 19820 of 2021 -7- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs fairly submits that he has not challenged the legality or validity of the Mulageni Act before this Court. 6. Section 10 of the Mulageni Act provides as follows: “10. Bar of jurisdiction.-(1) Except as provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the competent authority or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be. (2) All pending proceedings on the date of commencement of this Act shall stand transferred to the competent authority who shall decide the same as if they were filed before him under section 5.“ 7. Concededly, the plaint that is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs sets out that they have got rights. The suit was filed in the year 2011 when the Mulageni Act was not in existence. On 26.12.2016, the respondents/defendants filed an application before the authority under Section 5 of the Mulageni Act which application was placed before the learned Trial Court in O.S.No.158/2011. Based on this, a preliminary issue was framed and decided by the learned Trial Court. The HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9635 WP No. 19820 of 2021 -8- learned Trial Court after examining the provisions of the Mulageni Act, found that every mulagenidar or volamulagenidar who desires to acquire ownership rights shall file an application before the Tahasildar and not Civil Court and the Tahasildar shall hear and decide the matter thereafter. It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the Impugned Order below: “11. It is the case of defendant that, he is the tenant under the Landlord Ravivarma Krishnaraja under Lease Deed dated 23.03.1985. But as per the ‘The Conferment of Ownership on Mulageni or Volamulageni Tenants Act 2011' which came into force as per publication in Official Gazette on 25.07.2012, a Mulagenidar will be entitle for conferment of ownership rights in respect of lands obtained under Mulageni lease. The defendant intend to file application before competent authority under the said act for Conferment of Ownership rights over the plaint schedule property whenever the statute fixes the date. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. Further, as per Section 10(1) of the said act, this court is barred by jurisdiction to decide any question which is to be settled under the said act. At this stage it is relevant to note some of the provisions of 'The Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulageni or Volamulag Tenants Act 2011' Section 3 of the Act - Every mulagenidar or volamulagenidar who, on the date of commencement of this Act, is in possession and enjoyment of the holding shall be entitled to be conferred with ownership of the holding, on his fulfilling the conditions specified in the succeeding sections and on conferring such ownership right on him, all HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9635 WP No. 19820 of 2021 -9- rights and interest hitherto conferred on mulgar or intermediary as the case may be in such holding shall stand extinguished: Section 5 of the Act reads as under:- (1) Every mulagenidar or volamulagenidar entitled for conferment of ownership rights under section 3 and who desires to acquire ownership right over such holding held by him shall make an application to the competent authority in such form, containing such particulars, accompanied by such documents and within such time as may be prescribed. Section 2 (A) of the Act reads as under - "Competent Authority” means the Tahasildar of the Taluk in which holdings is situated or such other officer not below the rank of Tahasildar in respect of such area as may be notified by the State Government: Bar of Jurisdiction: (1) Except as provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the competent authority or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be. (2) All pending proceedings on the date of commencement of this Act shall stand transferred to the competent authority who shall decide the same as if they were filed before him under section 5. 12. The combined study of Section 3, 5 and 10 of the said Act discloses that, every mulagenidar or volamulagenidar entitle for conferment of ownership rights under section 3 and who desires to acquire ownership right over such holding held by him shall make an application before Tahasildar and no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act is required to be HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9635 WP No. 19820 of 2021 -10- settled, decided or dealt with by the competent authority. 13. In the present case, copy of Registered permanent Mulageni Chit dated 23.03.1985 discloses that, one Ravivarma Krishnaraj has leased the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant through a registered permanent Mulageni Chit. The Copy of Application filed before Tahasildar Bantwal in Form No.1 (Rule -3) discloses that, the defendant has filed application before Tahasildar Batnwal under ‘The Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulageni or Volamulageni Tenants Act 2011’ seeking Conferment of Ownership of suit schedule property in his favor. All these documents discloses that, the defendant is Mulagenidar of suit schedule property. 8. The only ground that was agitated before the learned Trial Court is on the challenge to the validity of the Mulageni Act which the learned Trial Court examined and gave a finding that there is no stay of the operation of the Mulageni Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs concedes that there is no stay on the validity of the Mulageni Act passed by this Court as on date either. 10. In view thereof, this Court finds no reason to interdict the Impugned Order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9635 WP No. 19820 of 2021 -11- All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN / KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA