A plaintiff asserting ownership based on historical rights and alleged partition must be permitted to pursue relief through trial when faced with disputed claims and questions of fact.

ORDER :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri.Prakash S. Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Ravishankar S., learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1. Notice to other respondents is dispensed as they are the co-defendants.

2. Defendant No.1 is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 27.09.2025 passed in O.S. No.99/2023 in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short).

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

3.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.99/2023 with the following prayer in respect of the following property:

"PRAYER

Wherefore, the plaintiff pray that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass judgment an ddecree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants for the following relief:

i. To declare that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

ii. For consequential grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents and anybody claiming under them from interfereing in the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs.

iii. To grant the cost of the suit.

iv. To grant any such other necessary relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deem fit under the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

SCHEDULE PROPERTY

All that piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.48, Than new Sy.No.48/1, measuring 1 acre 3 guntas situated at Giddenahalli village, Dasanapura Hobali, Bangalore North Taluk, which is the possession of plaintiff with house and electricity connection bounded on the:

Comprising of standing coconut tree, house and pump house set and electric panel board and drinking water to channel for cattle.”

3.2. Plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner in respect of the land in Sy.No.48, totally measuring 4 acres 12 guntas including 7 guntas of karab land situated at Giddenhali village, Dasanapura Hobali, Bangalore North Taluk.

3.3. Plaintiff further contended that on 05.08.1958 Hanumanthaiah son of Chikkahanumaiah, who is the father of the plaintiff had acquired the said land measuring 2 acres 2.5 guntas in the Giddenhali village, Dasanapura Hobali and same was allotted to Hanumanthaiah under the Inam Abolition Act vide order No.22875 issued by the Special Land Commissioner, Bangalore, Kolar and Tumakuru Districts. Thereafter, the occupancy rights were confirmed and there was an endorsement issued in favour of Hanumanthaiah.

3.4. Said Hanumanthaiah cultivated the said land and he became the owner in respect of 2 acres 2.5 guntas of land without any obstruction or hindrance from anybody.

3.5. Certified copy of the revenue records were placed on record to substantiate the said aspect of the matter.

3.6. Plaintiff further contended that after the death of Hanumanthaiah, his sons namely plaintiff and his wife namely Mayamma - defendant No.3 and defendant Nos.4 to 7 had a Panchayath Parikath on 21.06.1986 and the land was divided equally.

3.7. It is further contented that 1 acre 3 guntas of land had fell into the share of each of them. The said land which fell to the share of the plaintiff is shown as suit schedule property.

3.8. Plaintiff further contended that as per the Panchayath Parikath, katha of the property was also mutated in respect of 1 acre 3 guntas and plaintiff's land was renumbered as Sy.No.48/1 by MR No.4/1985-86 and reflected in the RT