IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.279 OF 2019 BETWEEN 1. SHRI G. SHRAVAN S/O N. GOVINDARAJ, R/AT NO.1 FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, GANESH BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032.
2. SHRI G. SHASHANK S/O N. GOVINDARAJ, R/AT NO.1, 4TH CROSS, GANESH BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032.
PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ALSO AT NO.101, DIVYA SHREE RESIDENCY, HD DEVEGOWDA ROAD, RT NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI KIRAN V. RON, ADVOCATE) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI.
2. THE DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICE, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, K. KAMRAJ ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042.
3. THE COMMANDANT, PARACHUTE REGIMENT TRAINING CENTRE, J.C.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, MULTISTORIED BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 009.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, NEAR CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.
6. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NEAR CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.
7. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU.
8. SHRI N. GOVINDARAJ S/O NARAYANAPPA, R/AT NO.1 FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, GANESH BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032.
9. SHRI N. JAYAPRAKASH S/O NARAYANAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.1 FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, GANESH BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032.
10. SHRI N. RAMAMURTHY S/O NARAYANAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.1 FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, GANESH BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.VIII IN O.S.NO.8340/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.VIII FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) R/W 151 OF CPC.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The defendant Nos.8 and 9 in O.S.No.8340/2016 are before this Court under Section 115 of the CPC, challenging the order dated 26.04.2019 on I.A.No.VIII filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are plaintiffs, petitioners along with respondent Nos.4 to 7 are defendants in O.S.No.8340/2016. The suit filed for the following reliefs;
“(a) Pass the judgment and decree against the defendants setting aside the compromise decree dated 30/06/1994 in O.S.No.10582/1987 before the city civil court, Bangalore, in which plaintiff is not a party in the proceedings.
(b) Pass the judgment and decree against the defendants declaring the plaintiffs are absolute owner of the property bearing survey No.70/1 and 70/2 of Kaval Bayrasandra Village, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, measuring 7 acres 07 guntas and (c) Grant the Permanent Injunction restraining the 5th, 6th and 7th defendants of their agents or anybody else claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property of the plaintiffs.
(d) Pass if any other order / relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under such circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. The suit is for declaration to set aside the compromise decree dated 30.06.1994 in O.S.No.10582/1987 and to pass the judgment and decree against the defendants declaring that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit property bearing Sy.No.70/1 and 70/2 situated in Kaval Byrasandra Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru and for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.5 to 7 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property of the plaintiffs.
4. On issuance of suit summons, the defendant Nos.8 and 9 appeared before the Court and filed their written statement denying the suit averments. Further contended that the suit for declaration is filed after lapse of a century.
It is also contended that the plaintiffs have not produced any documents showing factum of acquisition and passing of the award and also taking possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioners/defendants Nos.8 and 9 also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC praying to reject the plaint as there is no cause of action for filing the suit. In the application, it is contended that even though notification passed under Section 6 of the Mysuru Land Acquisition Regulation Act is produced, the plaintiffs have not averred or produced with regard to passing of award and taking possession. As there is no basis for claiming the land in question, whole process would be futile. Thus, prays for rejection of the plaint. Plaintiffs opposed the said application by filing the objection statement contending that there is cause of action for filing the suit and land belongs to plaintiffs by virtue of final notification dated 07.03.1912. The trial Court, under impugned order rejected I.A.No.VIII filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC holding that there is cause of action for proceeding with the suit. Aggrieved by the same, defendants No.8 and 9 are before this Court in this revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners- defendant Nos.8 and 9 and learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. Perused the petition papers.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the present suit. He further submits that except filing notification dated 07.03.1912, no other documents have been produced to establish passing of award and taking possession of the land nor any averments made in that respect. It is his further submission that the plaintiffs had filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.23324/2013 and inspite of direction of this Court in the said writ petition, the plaintiffs have failed to produce the documents to show the passing of the award and mahazar to show taking possession of the land in question.
7. Learned counsel invites attention of this Court to the averments made in the plaint and submits that there is no averments in the entire plaint with regard to passing of award or taking possession of land. As such, there is no cause of action to file the suit. Section 6 notification produced is only a conclusive proof of land required for public purpose. In the absence of production of documents subsequent to Section 6 notification i.e. passing of award and mahazar for taking possession, the suit will have to be dismissed for non-disclosure of cause of action. Thus, prays for allowing the petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs submits that there is cause of action for filing the suit and plaintiffs have produced final notification dated 07.03.1912 to demonstrate that the land was acquired for the purpose of Parachute Regiment of Military.
Further, he submits that subsequent to acquisition of land in the year 1912, by virtue of Articles 294 and 295 of the Constitution of India, land transferred from Maharaja of Mysuru to Ministry of Defense. It is his further submission that this Court in MFA No.3447/2018 permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with the construction on a portion of the suit schedule property on the undertaking given by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs would not claim any equity. Thus, prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
9. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material made available on record, the only point which arises for consideration is as to whether the trial Court is justified in rejecting the application- I.A.No.VIII filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC. The answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons.
The application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC is to be considered only based on the plaint averments. The defense or the averments made in the written statement would be of no relevance at the time of considering the application. The suit of the plaintiffs is for setting aside the compromise decree dated 30.06.1994 in O.S.No.10682/1987 and for declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the properties bearing survey No.70/1 and 70/2. From the plaint averments, it is seen that the suit land was acquired by Maharaja of Mysuru under notification dated 07.03.1912 published in the Mysuru State Gazette dated 14.03.1912. On the basis of the said notification, the plaintiffs have prayed for the relief of declaration. Paragraph No.2 of the plaint would indicate that by virtue of Articles 294 and 295 of the Constitution of India Ex-Mysuru State Lancers Force lands which was under the command of the Maharaja of Mysuru came to be transferred to Ministry of Defense, Government of India. It is the further averment of the plaintiffs that the acquisition of land came to their knowledge only in the year 2001 and thereafter, they have taken steps to correct the records and taken legal course to set right records. It is true that Section 6 notification would not be a conclusive proof of taking possession. It is for the plaintiffs to prove that they are in legal possession of the suit schedule property or part of suit schedule property and to establish their title over the suit schedule property. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CHURCH OF CHRIST CHARITABLE TRUST AND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCEITY v. PONNIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706, paragraph No.13 reads as follows:
“13. While scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty of the trial court to ascertain the materials for cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. Every fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. It is worthwhile to fine out the meaning of the words “cause of action”. A cause of action must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue.”
10. On reading of the above portion of the judgment, it would indicate that the cause of action is a bundle of facts and every fact which is necessary for the plaintiffs to prove should be set out in clear terms. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have produced final notification issued on 07.03.1912 and it appears that the entire case is based on the said notification. Reading of the entire plaint would indicate that there is cause of action for the plaintiffs to maintain the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that unless the award is passed and possession is taken in accordance with law, the lands would not vest with the plaintiffs. At this stage, it is not necessary to find out as to whether the acquired lands vest with the plaintiffs and whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit schedule properties, which is a matter for trial and as such the trial court is justified in rejecting the application. Moreover, there is counterclaim by the defendants with regard to suit schedule ‘C’ property. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
The learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for a direction to the trial Court to dispose off the suit early. As the dispute involves land claimed by military and as the plaintiffs and defendants claim possession over the suit schedule property, the Trial Court to expeditiously dispose off the suit, with the co-operation of the parties.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-