The Civil Court is the proper forum for seeking a declaration of title over immovable property, and the mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC can be dispensed with if justified.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.

1. Though appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. Challenging order dated 23.11.2024 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur, in O.S.No.206/2024 allowing IA.no.V under Order VII Rule 11(A) and (D) of CPC and rejecting plaint, this appeal is filed.

3. Smt.Hema L.Kulkarni, learned counsel submitted appeal was by plaintiff challenging order of rejection of plaint. It was submitted plaintiff had filed suit in O.S.No.206/2024 seeking for declaration of his title in respect of land bearing Sy.no.391/1 measuring 02 acres 17 guntas, out of total extent of 24 acres 36 guntas situated at Karadakal Village, Tq: Lingasugur (for short “suit property”); for perpetual injunction against interference by defendants no.1 to 13 and for direction to revenue authorities for rectification of revenue entries etc. It was submitted suit was filed on 07.06.2024. Along with plaint, plaintiff had filed IA.No.I of 2024 under Section 80 (2) of CPC for dispensation of notice under 80(1) CPC to defendants no.14 to 18 and IA.no.2 of 2024 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 for staying of mutation proceedings in RRT 13124 initiated by defendants no.10 and 12 before defendant no.18 in respect of suit property. It was submitted on 07.06.2024, applications were heard and on 11.06.2024. IA.no.1 of 2024 filed under Section 80 (2) CPC was allowed. However, IA.no.2 of 2024 was kept in abeyance. Thereafter, on 11.07.2024, defendants no.14 to 18 were represented by Addl. Government Pleader and on 13.11.2024. IA.no.5 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC was filed for rejection of plaint. It was submitted main ground for filing application was that plaintiff had not complied with requirement of notice under Section 80 of CPC, that suit was barred by limitation, plaintiff had failed to avail alternative remedy, there was no clear cause of action and suit was filed on illusory cause of action. It was submitted application was opposed by plaintiff by filing objections.

4. Based on submissions, trial Court framed following points for consideration:

“a. Whether the defendants proves that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to reject U/o 7 Rule 11A and D of CPC?

b. What order?”

5. Without proper appreciation, it passed impugned order rejecting plaint.

6. Main reason assigned was that requirement of notice to defendants no.14 to 18 who were Government authorities was mandatory and on 11.06.2024 trial Court had observed that this was not fit case for dispensation of notice under Section 80 of CPC, consequently, suit was not maintainable. Apart from above, it also observed that against initiation of proceedings or orders passed in revenue proceedings, plaintiff had alternative remedy and suit was barred by limitation of Sections 61, 63, 64 and 135 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It also observed that plaint did not disclose cause of action. It was submitted said observations were not only contrary to material on record but also contrary to law. It was submitted, in plaint, plaintiff had stated that act of private defendants approaching revenue authorities for mutation of their names in respect of suit property amounted to denial of plaintiff’s title and therefore plaintiff had filed suit for declaration of title. It was submitted for seeking declaration of title, civil suit was proper remedy. For aforesaid reasons, observations by trial Court that an order passed by revenue authorities would not give rise to cause of action for filing a suit was without any basis. On said grounds, sought for setting order and for allowing appeal.

7. Smt.Anita Reddy, learned HCGP appearing for respondents