MUTTAMMA Vs. NAGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether dismissing the suit even on preliminary issue is only an appealable order and not a decree?

(2.) Heard on merits as well by consent of both the counsel on record. The original suit was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs for as many as four reliefs, the first and the third being one for declaration of title of the plaintiffs over the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The plaintiffs also added in their prayer for correction of Hissa Survey Map and other land records and rectification of the entries in the Record of Rights. The fourth one was an omnibus prayer praying for any other relief. The trial court framed the issue of maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act among other issues but disposed of the suit on hearing on issue No. 2 as a preliminary issue. Because the prayer is one for correcting the entries in the Record of Rights the court held that the suit is not maintainable under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964. Consequently the entire suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred appeal before the Civil Judge's court at Bidar and that court observed that the appeal is not maintainable as the appeal lies only against a Decree and not an order and hence dismissed the appeal. The correctness of that order is now challenged.

(3.) It is unfortunate that the learned Civil Judge failed to see that the entiresuit was dismissed after he gave a finding on the preliminary issue as to the bar of suit under the provisions of a particular statute, namely, the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Rule 2 was added to Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amendment Act of 1976. It reads thus: