Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the

learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondents

before the Trial Court by filing a suit for redemption prayed the

Court to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants,

directing the defendants No.1 to 4 to receive the mortgage

amount of Rs.1,000/- and to execute the discharged Shara on

original mortgage deed dated 22.9.1969 and deliver the vacant

possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs and

defendants No.5 to 7 and direct the defendant No.8 not to

disburse the compensation amount in respect of the suit

schedule property in favour of the defendants No.1 to 4

pending disposal of the suit.

- 4 -

3. While seeking the said relief in the plaint, the

respondents have made an averments that the husband of first

plaintiff and father of second plaintiff by name Nanjappa was

the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he was in

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and

that on 4.4.1970, the husband of first plaintiff and father of

second plaintiff by name Nanjappa and the husband of

defendant No.5 and father of defendants No.6 and 7 by name

Ashwathaiah have mortgaged the suit schedule property in

favour of mother of the defendants No.1 to 4 by name

Sri.M.Nanjappa S/o late Muniyappa of Obalapura Village for

Rs.1,000/-. It is further submitted that, the said mortgage

deed is usufractury mortgage and possession of the suit

schedule property was delivered to the said Sri.M.Nanjappa,

who was none other than the father of defendants No.1 to 4. At

present defendants No.5 to 7 are not available to join as

plaintiffs, they are also necessary parties, hence they are made

as defendants No.5 to 7.

4. The respondents/plaintiffs also contended in the suit

that defendants No.1 to 4 being the mortgagee in possession of

- 5 -

the suit schedule property, postponing to receive the mortgage

amount and to redeem the mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs

on one or the other pretext and the plaintiffs are always ready

and willing to pay the mortgage amount of Rs.1,000/-. It is also

contended in the plaint that defendants No.1 to 4 illegally got

obtained the revenue records of the suit schedule property on

the basis of the registered mortgage deed and the special land

acquisition officer-2, (BMICP), Bangalore Rural District had

acquired the suit schedule survey number property for KIDB

purpose and now they learnt that they are making hasty

arrangements to create some documents in respect of the suit

schedule property and thereby defendants No.1 to 4 are trying

to draw the compensation amount from the KIDB.

5. It is also contended in paragraph No.5 that they have

no right to alter or change the revenue documents of the suit

schedule property except redeeming the registered mortgage

deed dated 4.4.1970 and sought for the relief.

6. Defendants No.1 to 4 appeared and filed an application

under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 of CPC

- 6 -

praying the Court to reject the plaint as there is no cause of

action and same is barred by law. In support of the application,

an affidavit is sworn to by defendant No.2 that suit for

mortgage deed dated 22.9.1969 for redemption itself is not

maintainable and property has already been acquired by

defendant No.8 and the suit schedule property has already

vested with the State Government free from all encumbrances,

hence the suit for redemption of mortgage and restoration of

possession is not maintainable. It is also contended that the

Civil Court will not get jurisdiction to try any suit in respect of

the land acquired by Government and the very suit is also in

respect of the acquired land and for restoration of possession

which cannot be granted by the Civil Court and the relief

sought in the plaint cannot be granted. The plaintiffs have not

disclosed the true facts that, the survey number 75 is a Inam

land attached to Sri.Venkataramana Swamy Temple situat