Judgment :-

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 27.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No.947 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the first appeal filed by the respondents herein and remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal.

3) Brief facts:

(a) On 28.09.1965, a notification was issued by the State Government proposing to acquire several lands including the suit land being Survey No. 23/10 of Ejipura measuring 22 guntas for formation of Koramangala Layout. The original khatedars, who were notified were one Papaiah, Thimaiah, Patel Narayan Reddy, Smt. Rathnamma, Smt. Perumakka (Defendant No.3 in the suit), Munivenkatappa and Chickaabbaiah, the husband of 3rd defendant. After holding an enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 07.09.1969. Thereafter, 10 guntas of land held by Smt. Rathnamma was taken possession on 28.11.1969 and the remaining 12 guntas held by defendant No.3 was taken possession on 22.07.1978 and then handed over the entire land to the Engineering Section. The layout was formed, sites were allotted to the intending purchasers.

(b) According to the respondents herein, they purchased 12 guntas of land under a registered sale deed dated 15.11.1995 from Perumakka-3rd defendant in the suit. Originally the said land belonged to Chikkaabbaiah – husband of 3rd defendant. Chikkaabbaiah mortgaged the said property to Patel Narayan Reddy on 26.02.1985. Thereafter, the said property was re-conveyed in favour of Chikkaabbiah. After the death of Chikkaabbiah, his wife Perumakka, (3rd defendant in the suit) was the absolute owner and in possession of the property.

(c) When the Bangalore Development Authority (in short “the BDA”) tried to interfere with the possession of the suit property, 3rd defendant in the suit filed O.S. No. 10445 of 1985 for injunction and obtained an order of temporary injunction on 15.06.1985 which was in force till 22.05.1994. Ultimately the said suit was dismissed on the ground that before filing of the suit, statutory notice had not been given to the BDA. Thereafter, another suit being O.S. No. 2069 of 1994 was filed by the third defendant on the file of the Civil Judge, Bangalore and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.06.1995 with liberty to file a fresh suit.

(d) In the meantime, the respondents herein purchased the suit land from the third defendant under a registered sale deed on 15.11.1995. After the purchase of the land, the respondents were put in possession. When the BDA tried to interfere with the possession of the respondents herein, they filed a petition being W.P. No. 41497 of 1995 before the High Court, ultimately the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the respondents herein with a liberty to file a fresh suit.

(e) Thereafter, the respondents herein filed a suit being O.S. No. 4267 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore for permanent injunction. By order dated 18.06.2003, the trial Court dismissed the said suit as not maintainable.

(f) Challenging the said order, the respondents herein filed first appeal being R.F.A. No.947 of 2003 before the High Court. By impugned order dated 27.07.2005, the High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the same after permitting the plaintiffs to adduce evidence on merits.

(g) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred this appeal by way of special leave.

4) Heard Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. G.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondents.

Discussion:

5) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit when the schedule lands were acquired under the land acquisition proceedings and whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court without examining the qu