A NARAYANASWAMY Vs. N NARAYANASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sixth defendant filed the present Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 15th March 2016 made in O.S.No.497/2015 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chickballapur, dismissing I.A.No.4 filed by the 6th defendant under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The respondent Nos.1 to 6/plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.497/2015 for the relief of declaration to declare that the suit schedule properties belong to Sri Gopalaswamy Devaru Inamthi lands (Devadaya lands) and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, workers, servants, heirs, representatives, assigns, coolies or anybody claiming under them or on their behalf from alienating or creating any type of encumbrance over the suit properties, contending that, the plaintiffs and other devotees are maintaining the plaint schedule properties for the purpose of improvements of Sri Gopalaswamy (Venugopala Swamy temple) and Channakeshavaswamy temple of Doddamarali village. The plaintiffs are utilizing the income derived from the plaint schedule properties for performing the daily pooja and devotional functions. The defendants never cultivated the schedule lands. The defendants' family members are the Archakas of the said temples. The defendants or their family members are not having any independent right over the schedule properties. The defendants taking undue advantage that they and their family members are the Archakas of the above said temples, are trying to create documents in their name in respect of the schedule properties, in collusion with the lower revenue authorities and are trying to dispose of the schedule properties in favour of the third parties. It is further contended that on 15.10.2015, defendants and their family members proclaimed in the village that they are the owners of the properties and they are trying to alienate the schedule properties to third parties by use of illegal force. The plaintiffs have approached the higher authorities and appraised them of the illegal acts committed by the defendants, but it is of no use. Since the plaintiffs can't always resist the illegal acts of the defendants without the aid of the Court, filed suit for the relief sought for. It is stated that the cause of action for the suit arose only on 15.10.2015 when the defendants tried to commit the illegal acts by force, within the jurisdiction of the Trial court.

(3.) The defendant No.6 alone filed written statement, contending that the averments made in the suit are false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable. It is contended that the suit is filed with an intention to harass the 6th defendant. The 6th defendant filed an application for inam abolition, requesting for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.150 of Doddamarali village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk, measuring 7 acres 6 guntas which was devadaya inam land endowed to Sri Gopal Swamy Temple on the ground that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land for long time, in lieu of his services rendered to the temple as Archaka, w.e.f. 01.07.1970. The Deputy Commissioner, after conducting detailed enquiry, by order dated 102.1976 held that 6th defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the land and declared him as Archaka and agriculturist and directed to register the name of the 6th defendant's as occupant of land bearing Sy.No.150 of Doddamarali village. In pursuance of the said order, the Special Deputy Commissioner issued memo along with endorsement to the Tahsildar for transfer of katha in favour of 6th defendant. In pursuance of the said order, the 6th defendant continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. The 6th defendant has also paid premium to the Government as per order dated 102.1976 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bengaluru. It is contended that the 6th defendant is a physically handicapped person and he used to cultivate the land through his brother-in-law by name Moogi Narayanappa and his sons. Accordingly, his name is shown in the cultivators column etc., and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.