IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.76/2023 BETWEEN:

SMT. RAJAMMA, SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HER LRS.

1. SRI. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

2. SRI. ASHOK, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 3. SRI. SRANGAPANI, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

ALL ARE R/AT NO.224, 15^TH CROSS, ANANDAPURA, JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGAR, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 075. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. MUNIYAMMA, W/O LATE EARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT SY.NO.16/2, HAGADUR, IMMADIHALLI VILALGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 066. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.MADHUSUDAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS M.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER 43 RULE 1 AND 2 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.114/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND REJECTING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.10.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1127/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, WITH A DIRECTION TO TRIAL COURT TO DECIDE THE CASE ON MERITS AFTER FULL FLEDGED TRIAL.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.07.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(4) of CPC, praying this Court to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.114/2022, on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore dated 24.02.2023, in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.1127/2019, entertaining an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Sections 9 and 11 of CPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the defendants while filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Sections 9 and 11 of CPC, it is contended that the present suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction not to dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law is hit by Section 11 of CPC. It is further contended that the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘PTCL Act’ for short) has decided about the issue and defendants Nos.2 to 5 are put in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act bars the suit and therefore the same is liable to be rejected. It is also contended that the order of the Assistant Commissioner is upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court and therefore the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and hence prayed the Trial Court to reject the plaint.

3. In pursuance of the said application, the plaintiff has filed the objection statement contenting that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and there is no any transfer of possession to the defendants and yet to deliver the possession. It is contended that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property and defendants Nos.2 to 4 do not have any right over the same. It is contended that the application is false, frivolous and the same is liable to be rejected.

4. The Trial Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the application, formulated the point whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as barred by PTCL Act, 1978? The Trial Court having considered the material available on record and also the pleadings of the parties, comes to the conclusion that the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order restoring the property and directed to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to the legal heirs of the original grantee and invoked Section 5 of the PTCL Act and also held that the provisions of Section 5(2) of the PTCL Act makes a clear bar