RFA/19/2021 of SRI V CHANDRA Vs SMT YASHODHA B H on 17 August 2026

ORDER

DATED:21.12.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.5000/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-NO.

19) BENGALURU DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal by the plaintiff, assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2020 passed by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-19), Bengaluru1, in OS.No.5000/2020.

1 the Trial Court, for short

HC-KAR

2. The Trial Court under the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the suit as not maintainable, as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred under Sections 4, 5 and 11 of PTCL Act.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

4. Facts germane to file the present appeal are as under: 4.1 It appears from the record that, the plaintiffs claimed under the Grant Order dated 16.02.1967, in favor of their grandfather, in respect of land block Nos.40, 43 and 46, in old Sy.No.1 of Jarakabandekavalu, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, totally measuring 02 Acres 30 Guntas. On 26.09.2020, the respondents made an attempt to trespass and interfere with the suit schedule property, which made the plaintiffs to file the suit in OS.No.5000/2020 before the Trial Court for declaration of a permanent

HC-KAR

injunction, against the defendants. The plaintiff claims that the defendants have created G.P.A in favour of D.M.Narasimhamurthy and subsequently, registered sale deed in favor of M.R.Prakash. The said M.R.Prakash, on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 08.07.1986, staking a right over the property. In that view of the matter, the civil suit was filed seeking declaration and injunction against the defendants, declaring the sale deed as well as GPA are not binding of the plaintiff. 4.2 The defendants after service of notice, appeared and find objections only to the IA., filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. At this juncture, the Trial Court has raised preliminary issue, as to whether the suit is maintainable and answered the same in negative, holding that in view of provisions contained under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prohibition of Sale of Certain Lands

HC-KAR

Act, 19782, particularly Sections 4, 5 and 11 of the Act and held that the suit is not maintainable. It is this judgment and decree passed by Trial Court is called in question in this appeal.

5. Heard, Sri.Nanjundaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Varun.P, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.1.

6. Sri.Nanjundaswamy, submits that the plaintiff was before the trial Court for declaration and injunction on the basis of grant order passed in favor of his grandfather and not challenging the grant order, under the PTCL Act. In that view of the matter, the implied bar as stated by the trial Court is misconstrued and not sustainable in law.

7. Though, Sri.Varun, learned counsel for the respondent argued in support of the judgment. However, he is not seriously disputing the fact that the claim made by the plaintiff is on the basis of grant order. In that view 2 'PTCL Act' for short

HC-KAR

of the matter, the plaintiffs were before the Court seeking declaration and injunction against the sale deed as well as the GPA, which according to them are the concocted documents. The matter requires consideration to adjudicate upon the civil rights of both the parties.

8. The Trial Court, only on the premise that the land is a granted land, held the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as the Civil Court is not having any jurisdiction in view of implied bar under Sections 4, 5 and 11 of the PTCL Act. This reasoning of the Trial Court prima facie against the well settled principles of law. The plaintiffs were before the Court staking his claim and seeking relief bared of grant order, cannot be ousted at the threshold on the premise that bar under the PTCL Act. Admittedly, the plaintiff was not before the trial Court challenging any grant order or not seeking relief against any proceedings under the PTCL Act, in respect the land, but his rights to be adjudicated on the basis of the grant order passed in favor of his grandfather.

HC-KAR

9. In that view of the matter, without experience anything on merits of the Case, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is set aside. The suit is restored to its file. Both the Plaintiffs and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 09.09.2026, without expecting any fresh notice from the Court, since both the parties are present before this Court, through their respective Counsel. However, the plaintiff was directed to take notice in respect of respondent Nos.3 and 4, against whom the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2024.

10. The Trial Court record shall be sent to the concerned Court, without causing any further delay, since the date of appearance is 09.09.2026.

11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.

HC-KAR

12. All contentions of the parties left open.

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

PK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 ct-vn