The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is ousted in disputes concerning orders of the Land Tribunal, as its decisions are final under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok S.Kinagi, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2012 passed in R.A.No.420/2009 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Mysuru and the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2005 passed in O.S.No.417/1989 by the learned II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysuru.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.4, respondent Nos.1 to 6 were the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.7 to 9 were defendant Nos.1 to 3.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration to declare the order passed by defendant No.3 in KLRM No.55/1983-84 dated 28.10.1986 as null and void, unenforceable, not binding on the plaintiffs, illegal and without jurisdiction and also sought for a permanent injunction.

3.1 It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the permanent residents of hamlet called as Kukkarahalli, which is now part of Mysuru adjacent to the Saraswathipuram locality. There is a temple called Sri Maramma Temple and the chief deity, Maramma is worshipped by the people of that locality. The temple is managed from time to time by the permanent citizens of the said village. They have the legal competence to represent the Maramma temple, as they are managing the affairs of the temple and they are also the persons who can espouse the cause of the almighty. The suit schedule property belonging to the deity Maramma along with the revenue records for the years commencing from 1960 to 1979 and thereafter upto 1987-88 establishes the ownership and possession of the same. Thereafter, the schedule property was acquired by the then CITB, Mysuru, to form a residential layout. Since the deity Maramma was entitled to compensation for losing the land, the CITB deposited the compensation amount of Rs.7,500/- with the Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk.

3.2 It is stated that since the flow of income from the schedule land stopped after its acquisition, the plaintiffs submitted a representation to defendant No.2 during 1983-84 for disbursing the compensation amount. Defendant No.2 passed an order to that effect. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 and his predecessors were collecting the interest amount every year from 1974 till 1986, to perform pooja in Maramma temple effectively, during February. It is stated that defendant No.4 made an application/Form-7 to defendant No.3-Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights claiming as a tenant of the schedule property. The Land Tribunal granted the same under the Karnataka Inams Abolition Act, 1955. It is stated that before passing an order, no notice was issued by the Land Tribunal to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is not binding on the plaintiffs. It is further stated that the plaintiffs came to know about the order when they enquired about the payment of interest with defendant No.2. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to challenge the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

3.3 Defendant No.4 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. The plaintiffs have got equal efficacious remedy. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the suit.

3.4 Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed a separate written s