Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to examine the validity of land transfers affected by the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, which is exclusively within the purview of the Assistant Commissioner.

JUDGMENT :

S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is filed with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2009 passed in R.A.No.270/2002 by the Fast Track Court, KGF, Kolar District.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Suit in O.S.No.262/1999 was filed by the appellants herein before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of one Gullappa, and subsequently he had sold the said property in favour of Smt. Kanakamma - wife of plaintiff no.1 and mother of plaintiff nos.2 to 4 under a registered sale deed dated 21.02.1977. Subsequently, the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property were also transferred in the name of Smt. Kanakamma and after survey of the said land, a new survey number was given as Sy. No.180. Survey sketch was also prepared fixing the actual boundaries of the suit schedule property. After the death of Smt. Kanakamma, plaintiffs had succeeded to the suit schedule property. Defendants who have no right or interest whatsoever over the suit schedule property, were illegally interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property, and it is under these circumstances, they had filed the suit. The defendants had filed their written statement and opposed the suit claim. Before the Trial Court, plaintiffs had examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked ten documents as Ex.P1 to P10. On behalf of defendants, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and eight documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to D8. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides had decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 29.10.2022. The First Appellate Court in RA No.273/2002 by judgment and decree dated 21.10.2009 has set-aside the said judgment and decree passed in OS No.262/1999 by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this regular second appeal.

5. This Court vide order dated 05.10.2010, while admitting this regular second appeal has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal:-

"Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in holding that the land in question was granted land with a non-alienation clause and therefore could not have been alienated within the non-alienation period and that such transfer was mull and void in terms of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978?"

6. Learned counsel for the appellants having reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submits that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. She submits that it is nobodys case that suit schedule property was purchased by Smt. Kanakamma from the original grantee PW2 Goolappa in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act and therefore, the Appellate Court was not justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has argued in support of the impugned judgment and decree. He submits that plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and possession over the suit schedule property before the Trial Court was therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in decreeing the suit. The grant order does not mention the boundaries of the granted land and in the plaint, the boundaries have been given to the suit schedule property