J YAGAPPA Vs. SUBBARAYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common petitioners, assailing the correctness of the order dated 23- 10-2007 passed on Additional issue No. 1 (in C.R.P. No. 17/2008) and on I.A. No. VII (in W.P. No. 19671/2007) in O.S. No. 943/2002 by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, and in the interest of justice and equity, have presented the instant petitions.

(2.) The plaintiffs-respondents herein have filed O.S. No. 943/2002 before the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) Bangalore Rural District Bangalore, against defendants-petitioners herein for declaration and injunction. Defendants-petitioners herein have contested the said suit by filing written statement. The Trial Court after completion of pleadings has framed necessary issues. Prior to framing of issues by the Trial Court, defendants-petitioners herein have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (D) of CPC, for rejecting the plaint. The said application filed by defendants-petitioners was rejected by the Trial Court and Additional issue was framed to that effect as to, Whether the defendants proves that in view of section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the suit is not maintainable? The Trial Court after hearing both sides and after considering the relevant materials available on file, has passed the impugned orders as referred above. Having regard to these backgrounds, defendants-petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant Civil Revision petition against the order passed on Additional Issue No. 1 and writ petition against the order passed on I.A. No. VII filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (D) of CPC.

(3.) The principal submission canvassed by learned counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners herein is that, the impugned orders passed by the Court below on Additional Issue No. 1 and on I.A. NO. VII in O.S. No. 943/2002 are liable to be set aside at threshold. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Further, learned counsel appearing for petitioners has taken me through para- 11 of the order passed on I.A. No. VII and submitted that, the Court below has specifically agreed regarding plaintiffs-respondents herein filing the Form No. 7 (a) under section 77 of the Land Reforms Act, before the Granting Authority as tenant seeking registration of occupancy rights and they cannot file a suit for declaration claiming adverse possession and observed that, on the said ground it is not proper to reject the plaint as it is pre-matured and the suit will be decided after conducting thorough trial regarding the fact of adverse possession which is based on the bundles of facts. The said reasoning given by the Court below is not justifiable and it is liable to be set aside in view of suppression of material fact by the plaintiffs-respondents. Further, learned counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners has taken me through the order passed by the Trial Court and submitted that, the Trial Court has specifically pointed out in the order that, respondents have filed Form No. 7 (a) for grant of occupancy rights before the granting authority. Learned counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners herein has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases page 467 (AIR 1977 SC 2421). (T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another) and submitted that if the parties approaches the Court, they must approach the Court with clean hands and state the true facts and when this has been specifically pointed out before the Trial Court, placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, the Trial Court, except making a reference about the reliance placed by learned counsel appearing for petitioners, has not considered the specific ground urged by them. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners herein submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside.