The central legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, do not bar the plaintiff's right to seek permanent injunction, and the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit based on jurisdictional grounds.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, in Regular Second Appeal No. 5694 of 2010 whereby the High Court affirming the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2005 in Original Suit No. 219/1998 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nipani, the plaintiff-appellant through its partners is before this Court, challenging the same on various legal grounds.

4. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff-appellant herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the original defendant, namely, Bayavva (since deceased) through her legal representatives contending inter alia that the suit schedule property was taken on lease by the predecessor of the plaintiff/appellant-firm as a tenant. The Trial Court decreed the said suit in favour of the plaintiff-appellant recording a categorical finding on the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed before it that the plaintiff-firm is entitled for relief of permanent injunction and the legal representatives of the deceased defendant and any other persons on behalf of them are restrained from causing any kind of obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property.

5. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the legal representatives of the deceased defendant-respondents filed Regular Appeal No. 86/2005 before the District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi. The first appellate court, after taking into consideration the proceedings in an earlier suit between the same parties arising from issuance of notice by the Tehsildar to close the saw mill, is of the view that the agricultural land cannot be permitted to be used by the occupants for some other purpose and provisions of Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964 are attracted to protect the agricultural land and the revenue officers, forest officers are entitled to take action for closure of such mill. It further recorded a finding that even though the plaintiff-appellant firm has established its settled possession but it is not permissible under the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to run the Saw Mill since the land has remained as an agricultural land and the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff firm is in settled possession and it cannot be evicted without due process of law. Further, the first appellate court is of the view that Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 bars the jurisdiction of civil Court and the suit involving the question to be decided by the land Tribunal shall not be tried by the civil Court and no civil Court shall decide the question of such tenancy and such question requires to be referred to land Tribunal. Thus, the said jurisdiction is vested with the land Tribunal but not with civil Court and the trial court erred in granting the injunction against the legal representatives of the deceased defendant and thereby indirectly restrained the Government officials from taking any action. Eventually, the first appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant-respondents herein setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court only on the ground of jurisdiction.

6. Being aggrieved of the judgment and order of the first appellate court the plaintiff-appellant filed Regular Second Appeal. In the said Regular Second Appeal the High Court has affirmed the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court on the contentious issue in the judgment and dismissed the Second Appeal on the ground that no justifiable grounds are made out to admit the second appeal inasmuch as no substantial question of law arises for its consideration. The High Court while dismissing the appeal took into consideration the fact that in an earlier round