Karnataka High Court
Pratapsimha vs Mahiboob Fakirsab Ambi on 14 July, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.100050 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. PRATAPSIMHA
S/O BALASAHEB RANNAVARE,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ADVOCATE,
R/O: GOVINDPURGALLI, AT: MUDHOL-587313,
TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. KAMALABAI
W/O BALASAHEB RANNAVARE,
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GOVINDPURGALLI, AT: MUDHOL-587313,
TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. SHANKARRAO
S/O BALASAHEB RANNAVARE,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GOVINDPURGALLI, AT: MUDHOL-587313,
Digitally signed TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT.
by ANUSHA V
Location: High 4. HEMANT
Court of S/O BALASAHEB RANNAVARE,
Karnataka AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GOVINDPURGALLI, AT: MUDHOL-587313,
TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT.
5. LAXMIBAI
D/O BALASAHEB RANNAVARE,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GOVINDPURGALLI, AT: MUDHOL-587313,
TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHRIKANT D. BABLADI, AND
SRI M C HUKKERI, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
AND:
1. (MAHIBOOB FAKIRSAB AMBI)
SINCE DECEASED
1.A JARINABI MAHIBOOBSAB AMBI
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.SAIDAPURGALLI, WARD NO.3,
MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT.
1.B ILIYAS MAHIBOOBSAB AMBI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.SAIDAPURGALLI, WARD NO.3,
MUDHOL-587313 DIST: BAGALKOT.
1.C ANIS MAHIBOOBSAB AMBI
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.SAIDAPURGALLI, WARD NO.3,
MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT.
1.D RAFAT KAUSAR W/O. IFTIYAR AWATI
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.SAIDAPURGALLI, WARD NO.3
MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT.
1.E MAHMAD YASIN MAHIBOOBSAB AMBI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.SAIDAPURGALLI, WARD NO.3,
MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT.
1.F MAHMAD YUNIS MAHIBOOBSAB AMBI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.SAIDAPURGALLI, WARD NO.3,
MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT.
1.G IMAM HUSSAIN MAHIBOOBSAB AMBI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.SAIDAPURGALLI, WARD NO.3,
MUDHOL-587313 DIST:BAGALKOT.
1.H MUJAMIL MAHIBOOBSAB AMBI
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.SAIDAPURGALLI, WARD NO.3,
MUDHOL-587313, DIST:BAGALKOT.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
MUDHOL-587313,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS,
MUDHOL-587313,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NL BALAKURKI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO C) AND (E TO H);
SRI B S SANGATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (B TO H);
SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R2 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R1(D) HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 104 R/W ORDER XLIII
RULE 1U OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED
BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MUDHOL IN RA NO.32/2008
DATED 03.02.2016 REVERSING JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIV) MUDHOL IN OS NO.71/2003
DATED 12.03.2008 & ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 29.04.2026 AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
ORDER THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING FROM
BANGALORE BENCH, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and decree dated 03.02.2016
passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol in
R.A.no.32/2008, remitting matter back to Trial Court, this
appeal is filed.
2. Sri Shrikant D. Babladi learned counsel appearing
for Sri MC Hukkeri advocate for appellants submitted,
appellants were defendants no.4 and 5 (a to d) in OS
no.71/2003 filed by respondent no.1 (plaintiff) seeking relief of
permanent injunction against defendants no.4 and 5, in respect
of 3 Acres 38 guntas of land in RS no.55/1 situated at Rugi
Village, Mudhol Taluk (suit property). In plaint it was stated
that plaintiff and his bahubands were in settled possession of
suit property for several decades. Originally their land
measured 3 Acres. There was addition of 38 guntas of alluvial
land caused by change in flow of Ghataprabha River on
northern side of RS no.55/1 which became part and parcel of it.
And boundaries of said alluvial land were:
East by : Alluvial land;
West by : Alluvial land;
South by : RS no.55/1;
North by : Ghataprabha River.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
3. When plaintiff applied for grant of said alluvial land,
Tahsildar (defendant no.2) after enquiry confirmed its existence
and passed order no.LNDCR/90-91 on 23.02.1991 and granted
it to plaintiff. That even prior to grant plaintiff was cultivating it
and had obtained water permission from Assistant Executive
Engineer, Mudhol in year 1986 and installed a 7 HP irrigation
pump for irrigating lands in RS no.55/1 and RS no.44/2.
Therefore defendants no.4 and 5 had no right, title or interest
over suit property but falsely claimed to have purchased
riverbed land bearing RS no.253 on northern side of river under
sale deed dated 10.12.1992. It was stated that in collusion with
heirs of erstwhile Maharaja, defendants no.2 and 3 had illegally
created survey records and revenue entries falsely showing
existence of RS no.253 and despite grant to plaintiff in 1991,
revenue authorities acted adverse to his interest by claiming
that land bearing separate survey number existed on northern
side of plaintiff’s land and assigned RS no.253 to Ghataprabha
riverbed. As per original survey map, northern boundary of RS
no.55 was river and there was no land adjacent to it on that
side. And that defendant no.3 sought to justify same on basis
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
of corrections made to original survey map, which were without
any basis.
4. Later, under MR no.4263 defendants no.4 and 5 got
their names entered in revenue records and began interfering
with plaintiff’s possession over suit property. Defendant no.5
used political influence to secure findings denying existence of
alluvial land. It was stated that sale deed dated 10.12.1992
was sham, bogus and ineffective due to non-existence of such
property. In appeal, Tahsildar held ME no.4263 illegal. In
appeal, Assistant Commissioner, Jamkhandi (AC) upheld order.
But Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot, (DC) in Revision set-aide
orders of Tahsildar and AC on ground of insufficient material to
decide validity of order granting land to plaintiff. Therefore,
plaintiff filed WP no.30633/2000, before this Court. On
13.12.2000, it was disposed of with direction to notify all
adjoining landholders, conduct survey in their presence and
ascertain existence and extent of alluvial land. But without
issuing notice to all adjacent owners, defendant no.3 conducted
survey and held existence of land bearing RS no.253, ignoring
order of defendant no.2 granting it to plaintiff. Apprehending
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
attempt by defendants to illegally interfere/dispossess plaintiff
from suit property, plaintiff filed suit.
5. On appearance, defendants no.4 and 5 filed written
statement firstly, claiming that they had purchased land
bearing RS no.253 of Rugi village from legal heirs of erstwhile
Maharaja of Jamkhandi, secondly, denying existence of alluvial
land and thirdly, urging bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court in view
of Sections 61 and 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961
(KLR). In view of contention regarding bar of jurisdiction, trial
Court framed following:
Additional issue no.1
“Whether the defendant no.4 and 5 prove that
this Court has no jurisdiction under Section 63 of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act as contended in
Para no.7 and 8 of the written statement?
6. On consideration, trial Court answered said issue in
affirmative and suit dismissed. Aggrieved plaintiff filed RA
no.32/2008, wherein appellate Court framed following points
for its consideration:
Points
1. Whether lower court has failed to appreciate
factual and legal aspects in a proper
perspective and passed impugned order which
is illegal, capricious and perverse and same is
liable to be set-aside, thereby interference of
this court is necessary?
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
2. What order or decree?
7. And answering point no.1 in affirmative, point no.2
was answered by allowing appeal, setting aside judgment and
decree of trial Court and remanding matter back with direction
to record evidence on all issues and dispose of suit on merits as
expeditiously as possible, leading to this appeal.
8. It was submitted dispute originated from grant of
38 guntas of alleged alluvial land to plaintiff on 23.02.1991 by
defendant no.2. Though grant was held valid by AC on
26.08.1993, DC set-aside said orders by concluding that land in
question was not alluvial land but formed part of RS no.253, a
private land belonging to Ghorpade family, portion of which was
purchased by defendants no.4 and 5. And in terms of directions
in WP no.30633/2000, survey was conducted after due notice
to all adjacent landowners and after affirming claim of
defendants no.4 and 5, name of defendant no.5 was mutated in
revenue records. It was submitted suit filed by plaintiff as his
objective was not achieved before Revenue Authorities. It was
submitted that trial Court had rightly framed and decided issue
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
of jurisdiction as preliminary issue and held it lacked
jurisdiction in view of Sections 61, 81 and 92 of KLR.
9. It was submitted, suit was not maintainable as
legality or validity of grant, cancellation and determination of
alluvial land were matters falling exclusively within jurisdiction
of Revenue Authorities under Sections 81 and 92 of KLR Act. It
was submitted that Section 81 of KLR expressly provided that
all alluvial lands, newly formed islands and abandoned
riverbeds vest in State Government and Section 92 of KLR
empowered DC to grant such lands. Consequently, questions
concerning existence of alluvial land and entitlement to grant
could be decided only by revenue authorities. It was submitted,
Section 61 of KLR expressly barred jurisdiction of Civil Courts in
matters entrusted to Revenue Authorities. While Section 61 (1)
contained general bar, Section 61 (2) specifically provided for
exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court. But first appellate Court
failed to appreciate distinction between general and specific bar
contained in Section 61 and erred in remanding matter to trial
Court.
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
10. It was submitted, impugned order also violated
Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by failing to frame proper points for
determination and independently re-assessing material. It erred
in merely citing judgments of both sides, without discussing
their applicability and summarily concluded that authorities
relied on by plaintiff were applicable while those cited by
defendants were not, which reflects non-application of mind
and renders judgment unsustainable. It was submitted, trial
Court rightly invoked Order 14 Rule 2 (2) of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and decided issue of jurisdiction as a
preliminary issue. Same being pure question of law remand
was unnecessary. It was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of Santosh Kumar alias Rana Ram Kalal v. Ashok
Chand, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 385, had held, issues
relating to maintainability and jurisdiction when pure questions
of law can be tried as preliminary issues. It was submitted that
in Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India, reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1322, Hon’ble Supreme Court held issue of
limitation can be decided as preliminary issue on admitted
facts.
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
11. It was submitted, Rajasab Husseinsab Mulla v.
Inayuthullakhan, reported in 1990 SCC OnLine Kar 229 it
was held that a suit for establishing rights between private
parties would be maintainable before Civil Court even if same
was dependent on entry in revenue record alleged to be illegal.
Said ratio has no application to present dispute. It was
submitted allegations of fraud, fabrication and manipulation of
revenue documents and arraying of State of Karnataka,
Tahsildar and ADLR would not indicate that suit was for
deciding private rights under Section 63 of KLR. Therefore, bar
under Section 61 of KLR would apply. Further, when plaintiff
admitted that in revenue proceedings, grant in his favour was
cancelled by DC and he had challenged it before this Court, he
cannot seek to reopen same issues before Civil Court. Without
prejudice to contentions to contrary, even if every averment in
plaint were taken as true, suit would be barred as subject
matter was within jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities.
12. Relying on findings of DC and this Court, it was
submitted that after detailed survey, preparation of PT sheets,
examination of Tippan extracts and other revenue records,
competent authorities categorically concluded non-existence of
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
alluvial land adjacent to plaintiff’s land and disputed extent was
part of Sy.no.253 and rejecting plaintiff’s claim. Said findings
attained finality and could not be indirectly re-agitated in suit
for injunction. He relied on ratio in Rama Chandra Rao v.
Koraga, reported in 1969 Mys.LJ SN 143, wherein it was
held that questions relating to legality or validity of grants
made under KLR must be decided by Revenue Authorities and
not by Civil Courts. And on decision in Narayan Rao v.
Devdas Naik, reported in 1975 (1) KLJ SN 144, where it was
held that disputes concerning rights governed by special
statutes fell beyond jurisdiction of Civil Courts. It was
submitted, Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically held in
Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR
1969 SC 78, that where a statute creates a special right or
liability, establishes special forum for determination of disputes
exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts had to be presumed.
And when KLR provided for acquiring rights over Government
land (including alluvial land), provided for adjudication before
Revenue Authorities in appeals and revisions etc. exclusion of
jurisdiction of Civil Court had to be presumed. Reliance was
also placed on Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
Shantaram Wadke, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 496 and
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bal
Mukund Bairwa, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 299. It was
submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Singh v.
Chaman Paswan, reported in AIR 1954 SC 340, held that a
decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction was a nullity and
can be challenged at any stage. And that this Court in Patel
Doddakempegowda v. Chikkeregowda, reported in ILR
1986 Kar 2404 and State of Karnataka v. HJ
Shankunthalamma, reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Kar 505,
held jurisdiction of civil Court barred in matters in which
Revenue Authorities were empowered under KLR Act to decide.
13. About issue of alluvial land, reliance was placed
upon decision in Vishakante Gowda v. Assistant
Commissioner, reported in ILR 1989 Kar 884, wherein this
Court held that Section 81 applies only when land in question is
genuinely alluvial land, a newly formed island or an abandoned
riverbed, unlike in instant case, where it was seriously
disputed.
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
14. It was lastly submitted that plaintiff failed to
establish possession over suit property as trial Court specifically
noted that although plaintiff claimed to be in possession for 30-
35 years, he failed to produce any material to support same.
Thus, even on merits plaintiff was not entitled for permanent
injunction. On said grounds prayed for allowing appeal.
15. On other hand, Sri NL Batakurki, learned counsel
for respondents no.1(a) to (c) and (e) to (h) opposed appeal. It
was submitted only prayer sought in suit was permanent
injunction against defendants no.3 and 4 disturbing his
possession on ground that plaintiff as owner of adjacent land
was using alluvial land, even after his claim on basis of order of
grant was rejected. It was submitted, Section 62 (b) of KLR
provides for civil suits for determination of private rights and
Government authorities were formal parties. Further, this Court
in CRP no.100040/2015 relying on decision in
Hanumanthappa Kallappa Gudeppanavar v. Veerappa
Rudrappa Uppin and Anr., reported in 1976 SCC OnLine
Kar 168, held that suit for determination of private rights was
maintainable. And Section 61 of KLR would not bar suit falling
under any of clauses (a) to (c) of Section 62 of Act where it
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
was between private parties for determination of private rights.
Same was duly applied by first appellate Court. Hence, no
interference was warranted.
16. Sri Praveena Devareddiyavar, learned HCGP for
respondent 2 to 4 submitted that no relief was sought against
State nor revenue entries challenged. It was submitted as per
Section 61, revenue authorities had exclusive jurisdiction to
decide revenue disputes. It was submitted, while Section 81
provided that State had power to allot alluvial land, same did
not empower usage without express permission.
17. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment and decree.
18. Only question arising for consideration herein is:
“Whether first appellate Court was justified in
remanding matter back to trial Court?”
19. This appeal is by defendants no.4 and 5 challenging
order of remand passed by first appellate Court.
20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in J Balaji Singh v.
Diwakar Cole, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 207, Hon’ble
Supreme court of India held that an appellate court can remand
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
a case for a fresh trial under Order 41 Rule 23-A CPC only when
extensive additional evidence is admitted, requiring a re-
examination of the entire factual matrix. Further held that High
Courts, in Miscellaneous Appeal against order of remand are
confined to procedural review and cannot decide case on its
merits. Even in PE Prasannakumari v. TK Ambujakshi by
LRs. (Civ.Appeal no.4357/2024 disposed of on 18.03.2024) it
is held that in an appeal against order of remand by first
appellate Court it was held:
“….. The only logical order which the High Court
could have passed was of setting aside the order
of remand and directing the First Appellate Court
to decide the appeal on merits…..”
21. Therefore, scope for interference by this Court
would be to examine legality of order of remand and not to
spell on merits of suit.
22. While passing impugned order, first appellate Court
noted that though suit for permanent injunction filed against
defendants no.1 to 5, relief was claimed only against
defendants no.1, 4 and 5 on ground that they had attempted to
obstruct his possession and attempting to dispossess him. It
also noted plaintiff’s assertion that claim of defendants was on
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
basis of manipulated survey records for creating right in favour
of erstwhile Maharaja of Mudhol and alleged purchase by
defendants no.4 and 5 from legal heirs of Maharaja.
23. It noted that suit was between private parties and
no relief was claimed against Government and relief claimed fell
under Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) and as
such, fell under Section 62 of KLR. And since revenue
authorities did not have power to grant injunction, suit was
maintainable. It conclude that observation by trial Court that
suit was not maintainable was not justified and as trial Court
had not recorded evidence nor recorded findings on all issues
especially when question whether plaintiff was in possession of
suit property, whether DC granted alluvial land to plaintiff,
whether there was interference by defendants would be matter
for trial and required evidence.
24. It observed since plaintiff had not made any
averments regarding cancellation of grant by DC but had
claimed to be in possession of suit property for long duration,
suit for permanent injunction was maintainable and therefore,
it was a fit case for remand. Indeed, as contended, while
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
arriving at such conclusion, first appellate Court has not
referred to decisions relied upon and had generally stated that
rulings submitted by defendants no.4 and 5 were
distinguishable while rulings relied by plaintiff with regard to
duty of trial Court to record findings on all issues as aptly
applicable.
25. First ground urged by learned counsel for
defendants no.4 and 5 is that trial Court had rightly decided
additional issue no.1 and there was no scope for interference.
It is contended first appellate Court observed, main questions
arising for consideration in suit were whether plaintiff was in
possession of suit property, whether DC granted alluvial land to
plaintiff, whether there was interference by defendants? It was
submitted, even as per plaintiff, there was serious dispute
about title and possession over disputed extent of 38 guntas
wherein plaintiff claimed to be alluvial land adjacent to
plaintiff’s land on northern side and which was granted to him
by defendant no.2 in 1991, whereas defendants no.4 and 5
claimed to have purchased on legal heirs of erstwhile Maharaja
of Mudhol in whose name said property stood prior to purchase.
Though it is alleged that there was manipulation of record and
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
riverbed area was illegally assigned Sy.no.253 to lay claim,
plaintiff’s claim to be in lawful possession would be based on
determination of validity of grant of alluvial land by Tahsildar
on one hand while also determining legality of assignment of
Sy.no.253 to very same land granted to plaintiff.
26. This Court has dealt with scope of bar of jurisdiction
of Civil Court under Section 61 of KLR as well as maintainability
of suit under Section 62 (2) (b) of KLR in several cases. In
Rajasab Husseinsab Mulla‘s case (supra) it was held that
Section 62 was in nature of proviso to Section 61 and
preserved right of recourse to Civil Courts in disputes between
private parties for declaration of title and possession including
cases where entries in land records were alleged to be illegal.
In Hanumanthappa‘s case (supra) , this Court held that a suit
for possession of site and damages between private parties fell
within Section 62 (b) of KLR and was maintainable. Likewise, in
Irawwa v. Krishnaji Venkatesh Naik, reported in 1995 SCC
OnLine Kar 335, this Court held that Section 61 does not bar
suits under Section 62 (b) and (c) and that Civil Court may
decide issues of trespass or encroachment including those
incidentally involving revenue records.
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
27. In Jayamma v. State of Karnataka, reported in
ILR 2020 KAR 1449, Full Bench of this Court held that
Section 61 bars only matters assigned to revenue courts, while
Section 62 preserves suits between private parties and suits for
possession. In Dundappa v. Sundrawwa, reported in 2017
SCC OnLine Kar 4459, Division Bench of this Court reaffirmed
that suit by private parties for declaration of private right over
immovable property would be maintainable even if affected by
entries in revenue records. Even in HJ Shankunthalamma’s
case (supra), this Court has observed that though Civil Courts
have no jurisdiction over matters exclusively reserved to
Revenue Courts, it held Section 62 preserved jurisdiction of
Civil Court in respect of categories of suits listed therein.
28. Thus, arraying of State authorities with allegations
of manipulation of revenue records would not render suit
barred under Section 61 of KLR. Main question would be
whether relief sought in suit falls within any of matters listed in
under clause (a) to (h) of Section 61 (2) of KLR or matters
enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) of Section 62 of KLR.
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
29. Indisputably, present suit is filed for relief of
permanent injunctions against defendants no.4 and 5 only. No
relief is claimed against defendants no.1 to 3. In a suit for
permanent injunction, trial Court would require to determine
whether plaintiff was in possession of suit property and whether
there was unlawful interference by defendants. Consequently,
determination would be of private rights over disputed land. As
per decisions referred to hereinabove, if suit is filed for
determination of private rights between private parties and not
against State, suit would be maintainable. Thus, conclusion of
trial Court on preliminary issue about non-maintainability of
suit would be contrary to law and decision of first appellate
Court to contrary would be justified.
30. And since, trial Court dismissed suit as not
maintainable based on its finding on additional issue no.1
(preliminary issue) before recording evidence, first appellate
Court rightly remanded matter back to trial Court for recording
evidence and giving finding on all issues.
31. Insofar as next contention that first appellate Court
passed impugned order without framing proper points for
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
consideration and without independent re-appreciation would
appear rather uncharitable. As noted above, first appellate
Court has traversed each reason assigned by trial Court.
Though there is sum substance in contention that first appellate
Court did not referred to voluminous decisions relied by
appellant and it erred in brushing them aside with blanket
observation about their non-applicability, when conclusion
arrived at is lawful, remand on technicality especially when this
Miscellaneous Second Appeal itself has been pending for nearly
ten years and suit is more than two decades vintage.
32. Insofar as decisions relied there can be no dispute
about proposition of law laid down in Santosh Kumar and
Sukhbiri Devi’s cases (supra) about justification for deciding
suit on preliminary issues in case of pure questions of law,
preliminary issue herein was about maintainability of suit which
was decided before trial and since suit is held maintainable,
remand would be justify for deciding other issues after
evidence. Reliance on Ram Chandra Rao and Narayan Rao
cases, for proposition that questions regarding legality or
validity of grants governed by special statutes would be
deemed excluded from Civil Court and decisions in Patel
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
Doddakempegowda and HJ Shankunthalamma’s cases
(supra) to substantiate matters exclusive to revenue authorities
would not be helpful as it is specifically held that relief sought
in suit would fall within enumeration under Section 62 of KLR
and jurisdiction of Civil Court would not be barred, are not
relevant. Even reliance on decisions in Dhulabhai, Premier
Automobiles and Bal Mukund Bairwa’s cases (supra) for
proposition about deemed exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil
Courts, would be unnecessary as KLR contains specific
provision with enumeration of matters exclusive to revenue
authorities as well as matters not so excluded under Sections
61 and 62 of KLR as noted above.
33. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anathula
Sudhakar v. P Buchi Reddy, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594
has held that in a suit for bare injunction, trial Court need not
decide title. It is held that a person has right to protect his
possession against any person who does not have better title
over immovable property.
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9577
MSA No. 100050 of 2016
HC-KAR
34. Thus, question framed is answered in affirmative.
Consequently, following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed, awarding costs to
respondent no.1 – plaintiff.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGECLK/YKL/GRD
List No.: 19 Sl No.:1
