Karnataka High Court
Ningappa S/O Kariyappa vs Kashappa on 24 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5185 OF 2008 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN
NINGAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA PUJARI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
DHARIYAPPA
S/O. KARIYAPPA PUJARI,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
1A. SMT MALLAVVA
W/O DHARIYAPPA PUJARI.
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KATAKAR ONL BILGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 116
Digitally
signed by 1B. SMT NEELAVVA
NIRMALA W/O PARUSHARAM MAMADAPUR,
DEVI AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: R/AT KATAKAR ONI, BILGI,
HIGH COURT DIST. BAGALKOT -587 116
OF
KARNATAKA
1C. MUTTAPPA
S/O DHARIYAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 34 YEARS. OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. KATAKAR ONI, BIGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 116
1D. SMT SHARADA
W/O HANAMANT GODEKAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KATAKAR ONI BILGI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
DIST BAGALKOT 587 116
1E. SMT. SAVITRI
W/O IRAPPA PUJARI @ MALLADAD,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KATAKAR ONI BILGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT -587 116
1F. SMT. LAXMAVVA
W/O. YALLALING MALLADAD,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. KATAKAR ONI, BILGI.
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 116
2. GURUSIDDAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: BILAGI DIST: BAGALKOT
3. GULAPPA
S/O KARRYAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: BILAGI DIST: BAGALKOT
4. SOMAPPA
S/O.KARIYAPPA PUJARI
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
4A. SMT. SHANTAVVA
W/O. SOMAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KILLA GALLI, BILGI-587 116.
DIST. BAGALKOT
4B. SMT BHARATI
W/O. BASAPPA SUNAGAD.
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KILLA GALLI BILGI,
DIST BAGALKOT-587 116
4C. SMT SAKKUBAI
W/O YALLAPPA SUNAGAD,
AGE 29 YEARS, OCE: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KILLA GALLI, BILGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT -587 116
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
4D.BEERESH
S/O SOMAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KILLA GALLI, BILGI,
DIST BAGALKOT 587 116
4E. SATISH
S/O SOMAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 24 YEARS. OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: KILLA GALLI, BILGI,
DIST BAGALKOT 587 116
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI GIRISH A YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KASHAPPA
S/O. MAYAPPA BIDARI,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS-
1A. SMT. GAYATRI
W/O KASHAPPA BIDARI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCE: AGRILTURE,
R/O: YALLAMMA TEMPLE, KATAKAR ONI,
BILGI DIST: BAGALKOT 587 116
1B. REVANSIDDAPPA
S/O. KASHAPPA BIDARI,
AGE: 28 YRS, OCC:AGRIL,
R/O: NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
KATAKAR ONI, BILGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT. 587 116
1C. MAYAPPA
S/O. KASHAPPA BIDARI,
AGE: 25 YRS, OCC:AGRIL,
R/O: NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
KATAKAR ONI, BILGI.
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 116
1D.SMT.SHAKUNTALA
W/O. DHARIYAPPA JYOTEPPANAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:AGRIL,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
R/NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
KATAKAR ONI, BILGI.,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 116
1E.SMT. SABAVVA
W/O. PARASAPPA DONUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:AGRIL,
R/NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
KATAKAR ONI, BILGI..
DIST. BAGALKOT. 587 116
1F.SMT. PRABHAVATI
W/O. KALLEPPA JYOTEPPANAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:AGRIL,
R/NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
KATAKAR ONI, BILGI.,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 116
1G.SMT. SHIVALILA
D/O. KASHAPPA BIDARI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL,
R/NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
KATAKAR ONI, BILGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 116
2. HANAMANTAPPA
S/O. MAYAPPA BIDARI.
AGE: MAJOR. OCC: AGRICULTURE.
R/AT BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT 587 116
3. BASAVANTAPPA
S/O. MAYAPPA BIDARI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT BILAGI. DIST: BAGALKOT 587 116
4. SHIVARAYAPPA
S/O MAYAPPA BIDARI.
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT 587 116
5. SMT. CHANDRAWWA
W/O BEERAPPA JYOTEPPANNAVAR
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/AT: BAGALKOT 587 116
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
6. SMT. SIDDAWWA
W/O. SIDDAPPA HORAGATTI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
7. SMT. MAGAWWA
W/O. SIDDAPPA DIVANDAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT BAGALKOT 587 116
8. KAMAPPA
S/O MAYAPPA BIDAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS -
8A. SMT. RENUKA
W/O. KAMAPPA BIDARI
AGE: 45 YRS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O: KONNUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT 587 301
9. KUMARI BALAVVA
D/O MAYAPPA BIDARI
AGE:MAJOR. OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
R/AT. BILAGI, BAGALKOT 587 301
(RESPONDENT NO.9 BEING REPRESENTED
BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN NAMELY
RESPONDENT NO. 1A SMT. GAYATRI
W/O KASHAPPA BIDARI AGE: MAJOR,
OCC; AGRIL, R/O BILAGI)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B HIREMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4, R8(A), R1(A) TO 1(G))
SRI VIJAY M MALALI, ADVOCATE FOR R5
R6-R9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE
1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT:
20.08.2008 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) BILAGI, IN RA
NO.138/2005 THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED:15-10-2005 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
BILGI, THEREBY DISMISSING THE SUIT IN OS NO.153/1993 AND
DECREE THE SAID SUIT AS PRAYED, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC./
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 24.06.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 challenging
the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2008 passed in R.A
No.138/2005 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Bilagi2 and the
judgment and decree dated 15.10.2005 passed in OS
No.153/1993 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & J.M.F.C, Bilagi3,
whereunder the suit for declaration, possession and injunction
was has been dismissed by the Trial Court, which was affirmed
by the First Appellate Court.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking
before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 and
his younger brothers Gadigeppa, Ningappa, Dhariyappa,
Gurusiddappa, Gulappa and Somappa, are the owners of the
suit land bearing R.S No.218/3 measuring 4 acres situated at
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC‘
2
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘first appellate Court’
3
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
Mannikeri village in Bilagi taluk4. Plaintiff No.1 being the eldest
member, along with his brothers has filed the suit as a
manager of the family. The hand sketch has been produced
along with the plaint, whereunder, the plaintiffs’ property is
demarcated as ‘ABCD’ therein and the property of the
defendants which is adjoining the plaintiffs property in the
south is shown as ‘DCEF’.
4. That the suit land in R.S No.218/3 originally
belongs to Shashagirirao Govindrao Sardesai5, the Inamdar of
Mannikeri village. That he granted the suit land to the plaintiffs’
father Kariyappa Ningappa Pujari6 as a permanent tenant on
the condition that Pujari should pay 5-4 annas by way of rent
and local fund. M.E No.624 dated 15.08.1951 was effected in
that respect and certified on 09.12.1951. That from the date of
grant, the plaintiffs father and after his death the plaintiffs were
in possession and enjoyment of 4 acres of suit property openly
and peacefully without any objection from anyone.
4
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’
5
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Sardesai’
6
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Pujari’
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
5. That the defendants purchased land bearing
R.S.No.218/4 measuring 4 acres lying to the south of plaintiffs
land from its previous owner on 11.02.1983 and they are in
possession of the said land. That the defendants filed an
application that the extent of their land should be mentioned as
6 acres, pursuant to which RTS proceedings were held in that
respect and the Deputy Tahasildar, Anagwadi passed an order
to that effect, that the defendants land should be shown as 6
acres instead of 4 acres as per the Akarbandi. That the
plaintiffs challenged the order of the Deputy Tahasildar in an
appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi, which
was erroneously dismissed. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the
suit seeking for declaration and injunction.
6. The defendants No.1a, 1b and 1d entered
appearance through their counsel and filed a written statement
and denied the case of the plaintiffs. It is denied that the
plaintiff No.1 and his brothers are the owners and are in actual
possession of the R.S No.218/3 measuring 4 acres. That the
land bearing survey No.218/3 which belongs to the said
Sardesai, then the Inamdar of Mannikeri Village, had a number
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
of sub-divisions which were measured in the year 1963. That in
the final sub-division measurement, the land in possession of
the plaintiffs father was measuring 2 acres 18 guntas. That the
said measurement was finalised by the ADLR. That, as per the
order passed by the Deputy Tahasildar, Anagwadi, which was
confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, M.E No.2635 was
certified in the Revenue records. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs
based on old records is not maintainable and their father was
never in possession of the land exceeding 2 acres 18 guntas.
7. The defendants denied the description of the
property as per the hand sketch filed along with the plaint and
that the defendants’ land measures 4 acres 39 guntas. The
defendants further contended that the plaintiff No.1 and his
brothers had not acquired any interest under the grant by
Sardesai and contended that Sardesai has no right to grant any
portion of paragana land as a permanent tenant after the
abolition of the Paragana Inam Land Act. That the plaintiffs’
father has not acquired any right by virtue of the grant made
by Sardesai as prior permission of the Government was not
obtained.
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
8. It is the further case of the defendants that the
original defendant and his predecessors have been in
possession of the land within the boundaries of previous sub-
division No.4, (present sub-division No.5) as recorded in pot
hissa measurement in the year 1963, measuring 4 acres 39
guntas. The defendants further denied that the plaintiffs have
perfected their title over the disputed 2 acres of land by way of
adverse possession. That the suit, without seeking for setting
aside of the pot hissa measurement, is not maintainable and
the suit for declaration is barred by limitation. Hence, the
defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.
9. The Trial Court, consequent to the pleadings of the
parties, framed the following issues:
i. “Whether plaintiff proves that the extent of suit
land bearing Sy:No.218/3 of Mannikeri is 4-0-0?
ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit land to
the extent of 4-0-0 has granted to his father as
permanent tenant by its owner S.G.Sardesai the
then Inamdar of Mannikeri village, and its validty?
iii. Whether the plaintiff proves that himself and his
six brothers are the owners and in actual
possession of the suit land to the extent of 4-0-0
as on the date of suit?
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008HC-KAR
iv. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant
interfered and caused obstruction over his use
and enjoyment of the suit land to the extent of 4-
0-0, as alleged?
v. Whether the plaintiff proves that alternatively he
has become owner of the disputed 2-0-0, by way
of adverse possession?
vi. Whether the suit of the plaintiff, without
challenging the order of Assistant Commissioner
Jamakhandi is maintainable?
vii. Whether the defendant proves that suit without
seeking the relief of setting aside the pot-hissa
measurement of 1963, is not maintainable?
viii. Whether the defendant proves that suit of the
plaintiff is barred by limitation?
ix. Whether the defendant proves that the alleged
grant of land by Inamdar, in favour of father of
plaintiff, without the permission of the
Government and without any registered deed has
no sanctity in the eye of law?
x. Whether the court fee paid is correct?
xi. To what reliefs the plaintiff is entitle for?
xii. What order and decree?”
10. The plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and
two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. Exs.P1 to 27 have been
marked in evidence. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
and another witness as DW.2. Exs.D1 to D6 have been marked
in evidence.
11. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated
24.9.1996 dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs
preferred RA No.126/1996 before the Court of the District and
Sessions Judge, Jamakhandi. In RA No.126/1996, the plaintiffs
preferred I.A.Nos.1 to 5 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC
seeking inter alia, to produce documents by way of additional
evidence and also to lead oral evidence. The First Appellate
Court by its judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 allowed
I.A.Nos.1 to 5 filed in RA No.126/1996 as well as the said
appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.9.1996
passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial
Court for fresh adjudication on merits. Subsequent to remand,
the plaintiffs appeared before the Trial Court on 7.4.2005.
Thereafter, PW.1 further examined himself and marked Exs.P28
to P60. PW.1 was not cross-examined by the defendants. The
Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 15.10.2005,
dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred R.A
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
No. 138/2005. The defendants entered appearance before the
First Appellate Court and contested the same.
12. The First Appellate Court framed the following
points for consideration:
i. “Whether the lower court is justified in holding
issue No.1 in the negative?
ii. Whether the lower court is justified in answering
issue No.2 in the negative?
iii. Whether the lower court is justified in answering
issue No.3 in the negative?
iv. Whether the lower court is justified in answering
issue No.4 in the negative?
v. Whether the lower court is justified in answering
issue No.5 in the negative?
vi. Whether the lower court is justified in answering
issues No.6 and 7 in the affirmative?
vii. Whether the lower court is justified in answering
issue No.8 in the affirmative?
viii. Whether the lower court is justified in answering
issue No.9 in the affirmative?
ix. Whether the lower court is justified in answering
issue No.10 in the affirmative?
x. Whether the lower court is justified in answering
issue No.11 in the negative?
xi. What order?”
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008HC-KAR
13. The First Appellate Court, by its judgment dated
20.08.2008, dismissed the above appeal and confirmed the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being
aggrieved, the present second appeal is filed.
14. This Court, vide order dated 15.04.2014, admitted
the above appeal and framed the following substantial question
of law:
“Whether the trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court have committed a serious error in
dismissing the suit of the plaintiff without
considering the material evidence placed on record,
more especially Exs.P28 and P29, the orders
passed under Section 77(a) of the Karnataka Land
Reforms (amendment) Act, and thus the judgments
have become perverse and illegal?”
15. Learned counsel Sri.Girish.A.Yadawad, appearing
for the appellants vehemently contends that during the
pendency of the proceedings before the First Appellate Court,
the order under Section 77A of the Land Reforms Act, 19617
was passed, as a result of which, the matter was remanded to
the Trial Court, to specifically consider the said order of the
land Tribunal and to adjudicate the issues framed. That the
Trial Court has not considered the same, and erroneously
7
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1961’
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
dismissed the suit, which has been affirmed by the First
Appellate Court. He further submits that both the Courts ought
to have taken note of the order passed under Section 77A of
the Act, 1961 holding that the plaintiffs are the owners of an
extent of 4 acres in R.S No.218/3, the same having been
granted under Section 77A of the Act, 1961.
16. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Mallikarjunaswamy
B.Hiremath, appearing for the defendants submitted that in the
survey settlement done in terms of Section 152 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 19648, in the year 1963, the sub-
division in survey No.218 has been measured which is
forthcoming from Ex.D2. The plaintiffs not having challenged
the said surveyor settlement, are not entitled to maintain the
present suit. It is further contended that the plea of adverse
possession is mutually contrary to the primary case of the
plaintiffs that they are the owners in possession of the
property. It is further contended that with malafide objectives,
the plaintiffs have approached the Assistant Commissioner and
made an application in Form No.7(A) of the Land Reforms Act,
which the plaintiffs were not entitled to do since the land
8
Hereinafter referred to as the, Act, 1964
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
granted in favour of the father of the plaintiffs is by virtue of
the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 19779 and that the
same is forthcoming from Ex.D1. It is further contended that
the case sought to be put forth that the plaintiffs are the owner
of the property by virtue of the order of the Land Tribunal is not
pleaded in the plaint and the same is not the basis for title
claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit.
17. Responding to the contention of the learned counsel
for the respondents, the learned counsel for the
plaintiffs/appellants submits that the suit is maintainable
notwithstanding the report of the survey settlement. He further
submits that an application for grant can be maintained under
both the Acts and there is no bar for the plaintiffs to approach
the Assistant Commissioner and file application in Form 7A of
the Act, 1961.
18. Both the learned counsels have relied on various
judgments, which shall be considered during the course of this
order, to the extent the same necessary for adjudication of the
questions that arise for consideration.
9
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Certain Inams Act’
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
19. The contentions of both the learned counsels have
been considered and the material on record has been perused,
including the records of the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court. Before considering the contentions put forth by both the
learned counsels, it is necessary to notice the findings recorded
by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
20. The Trial Court has recorded a finding that the relief
of declaration cannot be granted since the plaintiffs have
neither produced any documents of title nor any registered
deeds evidencing the alleged grant by Sheshagirirao Sardesai,
the then Inamadar of Mannikeri in favour of plaintiffs father.
The Trial Court has further, noticing Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.29,
recorded a finding that the said documents having come into
existence during the pendency of the suit, the same creates
doubt and hence recorded a finding that the plaintiffs are not
entitled to any declaratory relief. That the plaintiffs have not
produced any document of title showing their possession of the
suit land to the extent of 4 acres and hence, have failed to
prove that he is in possession of the suit property as claimed in
the plaint. That the claim of the plaintiffs relies mainly on the
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
revenue records, the presumption available to the said revenue
records is a rebuttable one. That the plaintiffs are not entitled
to the relief of adverse possession and that the suit is barred by
time.
21. The First Appellate Court upon re-appreciation of
the material on record has held that the plaintiffs have failed to
place cogent and acceptable evidence before the Court to show
their ownership over the suit land. That the finding of the Trial
Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and
possession was affirmed. That the order produced at Exs.P28
and P29 could not be relied upon.
22. The primary contention that is put forth by the
plaintiffs/appellants is that the suit was initially dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 24.09.1996 and the plaintiffs have
preferred R.A.No.126/1996 which was allowed and the matter
was remanded to the Trial Court by judgment dated
30.10.2004. That consequent to the remand, the plaintiffs have
adduced further evidence and marked Exs.P.28 to P.60 and
that there has been no cross-examination on behalf of the
defendants with respect to the further evidence adduced by the
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
plaintiffs consequent to the order of remand. That the
documents produced consequent to remand as Exs.P.28 to P.60
are the order dated 04.12.1999 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Jamakhandi and other documents consequent to
the same have not been taken into consideration. It is the
specific contention of the appellants, in respect of which the
substantial question of law has been framed on 15.4.2014, that
both the Courts have not considered the said further evidence
adduced by the plaintiffs consequent to the remand as noticed
above.
23. The response of the respondents/defendants to the
said contention is that the plaintiffs were not entitled to invoke
the provisions of the Land Reforms Act since the lands were
covered under the Certain Inams Act. That the lands originally
were covered under the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watan
(Abolition) Act, 195010 and subsequently by the Certain Inams
Act. It was further contended that the case of the plaintiffs
placing reliance on the order of the Assistant Commissioner is
contrary to the case put forth in the plaint.
10
Hereinafter referred to as ‘Watan Act’
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
24. However, learned counsel for the
plaintiffs/appellants would contend that the appellants/plaintiffs
are entitled to make an application under the provisions of the
Land Reforms Act notwithstanding any application that would
have been made under the Certain Inams Act.
25. Since the said contention was put forth vide order
dated 07.03.2025, the following further substantial question of
law was framed:
“Whether the plaintiff was entitled to seek for grant
of land under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act in Form No.7A having regard to the
admitted fact that the suit lands are inam lands?”
26. In order to consider the same, it is relevant to
notice the following judgments relied upon by both the learned
counsels.
26.1. In the case of Muniyalappa VS.
B.M.Krishnamurthy and Others11, relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
considering a question as to whether an applicant who was
denied registration of occupancy under the Inams Abolition Act,
11
1992 Supp (3) SCC 26
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
has a right to claim tenancy under the Act, 1961. Considering
the said question, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“5. It may be stated that the purpose and scope of
the two Acts are distinct. The Inams Abolition Act was
enacted for the purpose of abolition of inam tenures
and conversion of such tenures into ryotwari tenure
and in that process, grant of occupancy rights to the
inamdars and the three classes of tenants specified in
that Act. The purpose of the Land Reforms Act,
however, is quite different. The main purpose was to
abolish the relationship of landlord and tenant in
respect of tenanted lands and to confer occupancy
rights on tenants who are personally cultivating the
lands. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the
appellant under the Inams Abolition Act does not lead
to the inference that he has no claim for occupancy
right under the Land Reforms Act. The appellant claims
that he is a deemed tenant as provided under Section 4
of the Land Reforms Act. The requirement of deemed
tenant, as provided under Section 4 of the Tenancy
Act, must be determined by the Land Tribunal. The
High Court having come to the conclusion that the
procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal was not in
accordance with the rules of natural justice ought to
have remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh
disposal.”
(Emphasis supplied)
26.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pillamma
(Dead) and Others. VS. M. Ramaiah Reddy (dead)
through Lrs. and another.12, was considering a similar
question as to whether a person who had earlier claimed
ownership rights over the land in question under the Karnataka
12
AIR Online 2022 SC 1236
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 which
he failed to establish, was entitled to contend that he is a
tenant of the land under the Act, 1961. Considering the said
question and noticing its earlier judgment in the case of
Muniyalappa11, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“17. Under the scheme of the Act 1954, all
lands in Inam villages vested in the State Government.
But under the Act 1961, not all agricultural lands vest
in the State; only lands held by or in possession of
tenants immediately prior to 1st March, 1974 vest in
the State Government. The claim of the tenant or
tenants for registration of occupancy rights under the
Act, 1961 has to be decided with reference to the date
of vesting under Section 44, viz., 1st March
1974. Under the Act 1954, the rights of the Inamdars
and tenants were decided with reference to the date of
vesting, viz, 1st February, 1959 under the said Act.
18. The scope and purport of the two Acts
being different, termination of the proceedings under
the Act, 1954 in regard to grant of occupancy rights
cannot bar an enquiry to establish the claim
under Section 45 of the Act, 1961 by the Land Tribunal.
What the Tribunal, under the Act, has to inquire into, is
whether the lands claimed by the applicant before it,
have vested in the State Government under Section
44 of the Act 1961. For that purpose, it has to decide
whether the lands were held by or in the possession of
any tenant immediately prior to 1st March, 1974(the
date of vesting).
19. This is what has been examined by the
Tribunal in extenso and thereafter finding was recorded
that the first respondent was in possession and was
cultivating the subject land in question immediately
prior to 1st March, 1974 (the vesting date)
under Section 44 of the Act, 1961 and accordingly
declared to confer the occupancy rights to the first
– 23 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008HC-KAR
respondent under its order dated 16th December
2002.”
(Emphasis supplied)
26.3. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Sannaiah and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and
Others13, was considering a question as to whether the
rejection of claim made for grant of occupancy rights under
Section 77A of the Act of 1961 on the ground that the said Act
was inapplicable to inam lands was just and proper. This Court
considered a contention as to whether there was a bar either
under the Certain Inams Act or the Act, 1961 itself entitling
consideration of application under Form No.7A in respect of
inam lands. This Court, relying upon the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Muniyalappa11 and
Pillamma12, has held as follows:
“7.The only aspect that is required to be considered by
this Court is could the Land Tribunal-Assistant
Commissioner reject an application filed under Form 7A
filed under section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act on the ground that the land as regards which an
application in Form 7A has been filed is an inam land
and therefore, would be amenable to the provisions of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
8.The above issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble
Apex Court has categorically held in MUNIYALAPPA’s13
W.P No.24289/2019 dated 01.09.2022
– 24 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008HC-KAR
case supra that an application by a tenant would be
filed under Land Reforms Act even as regards the land
which was an inam land. The said aspect has already
been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Land
Tribunal-Assistant Commissioner ought to have
considered the proposition as held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court and pass necessary orders after considering all
the aspects on merits.”
(Emphasis supplied)
26.4. In the case of Mahadevamma Vs. The State of
Karnataka, by its Secretary, Revenue Department and
another14, relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
“8. On perusal of Section 126 of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, we are of the view that the Government has
permitted the Land Tribunal consider the applications
filed in Form No.10 of Certain Inams Abolition Act for
regrant. However, Section 126 of K.L.R. Act cannot be
misdirected as if all the provisions of Karnataka Land
Reforms Act is made applicable to Inam lands. Section
77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act enables a person
who has not filed an application in Form No.7 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act to make an application
separately. We would have appreciated the arguments of
Mr. Ponnanna provided in respect of inam lands also
Form No. 7 under K.L.R. Act and can be filed when a
person claiming to be a tenant under Certain Inams
Abolition Act has to make an application in Form No.1 of
Certain Inams Abolition but, not in Form No. 7 of the
Land Reforms Act, Section 126 of the Act cannot be
misinterpreted contending that Form No. 7A can also be
filed for Inam land. In the circumstances we are of the
opinion that Section-77A of the Land Reforms Act cannot
be pressed into service to claim a right in respect of
inams land which is covered under the provisions of the14
2013 SCC Online kar 9901
– 25 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008HC-KAR
Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. Accordingly, we
answer the said point against the appellant.”
27. It is clear from the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Muniyalappa11 and Pillamma12
which is also noticed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
the case of Sannaiah13, that a tenant would be entitled to file
an application under the Land Reforms Act even as regards the
lands which were inam lands as the scope and purport of the
two Acts are different as also the scope of enquiry. In view of
the settled position of law, the further substantial question of
law framed on 7.3.2025 is answered in the affirmative.
28. The primary contention put forth by the learned
counsel for the appellant, with regard to the substantial
question of law dated 15.04.2014 is that Ex.P28 was the order
passed under Section 77A of the Act, 1961 during the pendency
of the proceedings before the First Appellate Court in the first
round of litigation and since the same was produced before the
First Appellate Court, the matter was remanded to the Trial
Court for consideration of the documents produced
subsequently which has not been done.
– 26 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
29. At this juncture, it is relevant to notice that the
plaintiffs who had preferred RA No.126/1996 filed IA Nos.1 to 5
in the said RA No.126/1996 to permit the appellants/plaintiffs
to produce documents as well as to lead oral evidence. The
First Appellate Court while considering the appeal as well as the
said applications, noticed that the documents that were placed
on record before the First Appellate Court were not available
before the Trial Court to decide the dispute on merits and since
additional evidence was sought to be adduced by the
appellants/plaintiffs, remanded the matter to the Trial Court. It
was also noticed that there were subsequent changes in respect
of the suit property measuring 4 acres since the occupancy
rights had been granted in favour of the plaintiffs’ family
members as per the documents produced by the appellants.
30. However, it is necessary to note that, after remand,
PW.1 was further examined and Ex.P28 to Ex.P60 were marked
in evidence. PW.1 was not cross-examined. The Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court, while noticing the further evidence
adduced by the plaintiffs had merely recorded a finding that the
same having been adduced during the course of proceedings,
– 27 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
the said further evidence including the order of the Land
Tribunal, cannot be looked into.
31. The plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration and
injunction with regard to the suit property by claiming that the
suit lands belonged to one Sheshagirirao Govindrao Sardesai,
the Inamdar of Mannikeri village and that the suit lands were
granted to the plaintiffs’ father as a permanent tenant, which
was reflected in M.E. No.624 dated 15.08.1951. However, the
case that is put forth by the plaintiffs which consequently
resulted in the order of remand is that the plaintiffs were the
owner of lands by virtue of the grant made by the Assistant
Commissioner. The plaintiffs have not amended the plaint and
hence have not averred in the pleadings regarding their claim
of title over the suit property by virtue of the order dated
08.08.1952 (Ex.P8). Hence, it is clear that the case that was
subsequently sought to be put forth by the plaintiffs before the
First Appellate Court, which resulted in the remand of the
matter, was not pleaded by the plaintiffs.
32. It is pertinent to note here that pursuant to the
order of remand, the plaintiffs have produced a certified copy of
– 28 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
the order dated 4.12.1999 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner under Section 77A of the Land Reforms Act
(Ex.P28), certified copy of Form No.1 (Ex.P29), the mutation
entries (Exs.P30 to 32) and the revenue records (RTC extracts)
(Exs.P33 to 59) as also certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
22.1.1983 (Ex.P60). It is also pertinent to note here that
consequent to remand, when PW.1 was further examined-in-
chief on 29.8.2005 before the Trial Court, the said Exs.P28 to
P60 were merely produced and marked in evidence. PW.1 has
not even deposed as to the nature of the said documents that
were subsequently marked in evidence and the nature of the
right sought to be asserted by the plaintiffs by virtue of the said
documents that were marked in evidence subsequent to
remand.
33. The suit that was originally filed by the plaintiffs
was based on a different cause of action i.e., the right, title and
interest asserted by the plaintiffs claiming title by virtue of the
grant made by Sheshagiri Govindrao Sardesai, the inamdar of
Mannikeri village, to the plaintiffs’ father as a permanent
tenant. The plaintiffs having not pleaded their case regarding
– 29 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
assertion of title by virtue of the grant made under Section 77A
of the Land Reforms Act, even the defendants did not have an
adequate opportunity to contest the same and there was no
proper adjudication of the rights of the parties to the suit vis-à-
vis the rights sought to be asserted amongst them as noticed
above.
34. It is also pertinent to state here that the defendants
would also be entitled to contest the case put forth by the
plaintiffs vis-à-vis their claim made pursuant to the order dated
4.12.1999 (Ex.P28). Although, the matter was remanded by
the First Appellate Court in the first round of litigation, the
plaintiffs not having amended the plaint seeking for adequate
reliefs, it is clear that the defendants did not have an
opportunity to contest the same.
35. Hence, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
having recorded the findings as noticed above, were justified in
not noticing Exs.P28 and P29 since the case put forth by the
plaintiffs in the plaint was not in terms of the said Exs.P28 and
P29. Hence, the substantial question of law framed vide order
dated 15.4.2014 is answered in the negative.
– 30 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9240
RSA No. 5185 of 2008
HC-KAR
36. However, liberty is reserved to the plaintiffs to
assert and establish their title in respect of the suit property on
the basis of the order dated 4.12.1999 (Ex.P28) by instituting
appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, subject to all
just exceptions. It is also open to the defendants to
question/contest the order dated 4.12.1999 (Ex.P28) in
accordance with law.
37. Subject to the observations made at para 36, the
appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
PMP/BS/ND
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1