A suit for declaration of ownership without possession is maintainable under special statutes prohibiting land transfer to protect rights of original grantees, particularly for Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe lands.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

This second appeal is filed against the divergent finding wherein at first instance, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.38/2016 vide order dated 25.07.2019 and the said judgment and decree was reversed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.131/2019 declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, however, the relief of permanent injunction sought by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The counsel for the respondents is absent and hence, the arguments from the respondents side are taken as nil since inspite of sufficient opportunities are given, not appeared before the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that the suit schedule property is a granted land in favour of their father Dasappa on 25.09.1980. The said Dasappa had filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner against the father of the defendant viz., Ramaiah in Case No.LND SC/ST.14/1996-97 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.07.1997. The further appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.SC/ST.13/1998-99 was allowed in favour of the plaintiffs. Based upon the said order, the Assistant Commissioner has passed another order in favour of plaintiffs in case number LND.SC/ST.MLR.1/2004-05. The defendant then challenged the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.SC/ST.22/2004-05 which came to be dismissed on 19.08.2004. The defendant also preferred a Writ Petition in W.P.No.12315/2006 before this Court which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 01.12.2008. The father of the plaintiffs viz., Dasappa expired during 1996 and mother of plaintiffs expired during 2009 and thereafter, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. The revenue records relating to the suit schedule property stands in the name of their father-Dasappa and they are also paying the tax. It is contended that though the defendant has no right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property, trying to interfere with their possession. Hence, filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners and also for permanent injunction.

4. The defendant, in pursuance of the suit summons, appeared before the Court and filed the written statement denying the entire averments made in the plaint and also denied the very title of the plaintiffs. It is contended that the suit is not properly valued. The defendant was in unauthorised possession of the said land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.138 and pursuant to the application submitted to the Tahsildar, the said land was granted in favour of defendant as per the Grant Certificate dated 05.02.2003. Since then, the defendant is in continuation possession of the said property. The revenue records are also stand in the name of the defendant and he is paying tax. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the following Issues:

1. Whether plaintiffs prove that, they are the absolute owner in possession of the suit property as pleaded in the plaint?

2. Do the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference?

3. Whether defendant proves that valuation of suit property and Court fee paid by t he plaintiff is not correct?

4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief's as sought for?

5. What order or decree?

6. In or