IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that once an application under Form No. 7 is rejected, a subsequent application under Form No. 7A cannot be filed, affirming the civil court's jurisdiction over property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.Sandesh, J.

1. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court granting the relief of possession of suit ‘A’ schedule property bearing Sy.No.124/2A of 10 cents in Puttur village, Udupi taluk as described in the schedule.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondents.

3. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

4. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs while seeking the relief of possession that defendant No.2 is the brother of the plaintiffs and he did not choose to join along with the plaintiffs hence, he has been arrayed as defendant No.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of 10 cents of land bearing Sy.No.124/2A of Puttur village of Udupi taluk bounded as per plaint ‘A’ schedule. The suit schedule property has been inherited by the plaintiffs along with defendant No.2 and they are the owners. In the suit ‘A’ schedule property which is a non- agricultural land, having tiled building bearing D.No.4/2010 and 4-10A totally measuring 10 cents which was a part of entire Sy.No.124/2A, 55 cents and extent of 45 cents have been granted to the mother of defendant No.1 namely Akkamma Poojarthy by the Land Tribunal. It is contended that the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in the name of Akkamma Poojarthy on 21.05.1981 in Sy.No.124/2 except the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. In fact, in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property which is belonging to the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 wherein the house and tea stall are occupied by defendant No.1. The plaintiffs contend that defendant No.1 and his brothers and sisters preferred writ petition in W.P.No.5134/1995 before the High Court against the order of the Land Tribunal which came to be dismissed on 08.09.2000. On 04.12.2008, defendant No.1 and his family members have entered a registered partition deed wherein plaint ‘A’ schedule property of these plaintiffs have not been find a place and not been allotted to the share of any person since it is the property of the plaintiffs. It is contended that they permitted defendant No.1 and his family members to continue in possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property out of sympathy in fact, defendant No.1 promised to make alternative arrangement with regard to plaint ‘A’ schedule property to which plaintiffs got issued registered notice on 06.12.2006. Inspite of service of notice, defendant No.1’s family members failed to surrender the vacant possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. Hence, they are liable to pay mesne profits of Rs.4,000/- from December 2006.

5. It is further contended that after service of notice, defendant No.1 and his family members got issued a reply on 02.01.2007 contending that the entire 10 cents of land is vested with the National Highway authorities since more than 45 years. It is further contended that defendant No.1 was not in possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property and there was no any small tiled building. The plaintiffs have no right to withdraw permission with effect from 31.12.2006 due to absence of property. In fact further negotiations were held on 01.03.2007 and defendant No.1 instead of surrendering 10 cents of land and building to plaintiffs, admitted to give 20 cents of land situated in Sy.No.182/1B2 of Puttur village, Udupi taluk and also cash of Rs.25,000/- in exchange to the 10 cents of property. Accordingly, Rs.10,000/- was paid to the plaintiffs through plaintiff No.1. After this part performance of agreement, defendant No.1 did not comply with the agreement. As such plaintiff was once again forced to give notice which was duly served on defendant No.1. It is contended that instead of complying the lawful demand of plaintiff, defendant No.1 got issued false reply on 06.08.2009 and Sy.No.182/1B2 has not been handed over to the present pla