IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF AUGUST 20Q9._ *
BEFORE "
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE *
R.S.A.NO.9l6/;QQ__9_
BETWEEN: I '
SR1 DASAPPA
AGED SIXTY YEARS
S/O SR1 };\/IUNISWAMY »
R/AT THI'FTAHALLIVI_LLAGE.__._
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI _ _
BANGALORE SOUTH '1"ALUK._ ; APPELLANT
[By Sri: N R NAIK__, FOR' N1.1R';:NAI1§A.ASSO§:£ATES. ADVS.)
AND:
1
/0 R 1\/EIJi\IIYAPi¥'A,vv---MAJOR
2 SR; MULI;A
_ _ MAJOR; S/'O DOBDAMULLA LINGAPPA
MA.jO.R, S /0 MUNIVENKATAPA
_ '4-4 "SI?€JVV»VkL3X1\§9(IMAPPA
MAJOR, S/0 LATE 1\/IUNIRAMA
5'. .. J"S:§<I'MUNI'I'I~10*1'1
-MAJOR, S /0 LATE VENKATARAMA
6" SR1 KRISHNAPPA
MAJOR, S / O BYCHAPPA
7 SR} MUNIYAMMA
MAJOR, S/O BYCHAPPA
8 SR1 R MUNEYAPA
MAJOR, S / O RAMAPPA
ALL ARE R/O MUGILABELE VILLAGE _
KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPE'1"TA§;UK"« p_ .; I
BANGALORE--560040 .»T.~RESPQ'NDEN5£S_
THIS RSA FILED U/S.'«.__iO0 OLE?' 'ePc;V"'AGuAINS1' THE':
JUDGEMENT & DEGREE DAfi'*E»D:02.o2;2Vo(3_a "-PASSED IN'
R.A.1\':'O.276/2002 ON THE FILE.,oEVTHE'eIVIL JUDGE (SR.
1".)N.},K.G.F., DISMISSING Ta1'E--ApPEAL AND-eoNF1RMING
THE JUDGEMENT a.A}'°JD'_ I:;--E.eI?.I;:E"aDATED;09.10.20o2
PASSED IN OS.NO. 18/£7/2090;'ON'T1iiE--.FILE OF THE I
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (,I.E.DN.}',._K,G.'E.; Q ~
THIS 1¥f{S}:A.'_V oN.1V1'5o'R----wVoRDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT _FOLLOW1NG:
.~afk\f\fiDDGMENT 1111
unjanleeesfinal:plaintiff in 0.S.No.184/2000 on
the file the Aclldvitiolnal Civil Judge [Jr.Dn.), K.G.F. is
Ciourtmin this appeal questioning the legality
V of the judgments of the courts below
diSmiSsi:igAi" his Suit for declaration and permanent
' injunction.
2. AS there has been a delay of 1156 days in filing
H this appeal. The appellant has filed the application for
condonation of the said delay. The application is
supported by the affidavit of the appellant. Aslpgetflthe
statement made in the affidavit, the
the copies of the judgment and ~decree'f_VVof.--VI.th'e
Appellate Court on 16.3.2006,iftheeeafteii'
with his counsel for the pnrpose of He'
has further stated thatt he'.lefe'l1'ei.ll' than one year
as such he was counsel to file
the appeals suffering from
Asthma to TB. Centre at
Bangalore' thfanéfyears he took treatment
as on ill--health, he could not meet
his 'Advocate-_and filefffappeal. Except filing an affidavit
effect supporting document has been
that he was actually suffering from
the ailment stated in the affidavit. Therefore, the
f ~ reasons stated in the affidavit have not been
"'v-Vsulostantiated. Thus the long delay of 1156 days in
filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained.
s'?
@/
Under these circumstances, no ground is made out to
issue notice of the application for condonation of'-delay
to the respondent.
3. I have also heard the learned
appellant to find out as to Whe_th.e_r_the’
any question of law.
4. According to thellpia.intiff”he of
Village office of Neeraganth””and.._ the “s1_1.it_.:l schedule
properties were attached’ ‘viili-age office. Upon
the by the provisions of
Karnatalia Villalgef’f;)llfi.ces””Abolition Act, 1961, he filed
the’ application before the competent authority for
fivii-I|””‘.’the Similarly, the respondent /
applied for regrant. The Tahsildar who
was the’ competent authority, by order dated 22.7.1998
Atregéranted the land in favour of the plaintiff and rejected
7.the’claim of the defendant. The defendants preferred an
l 2 “appeal before the Prl. District Judge at Kolar in Misc.
_/1
1
Appeal No.7 5/98 as required by Section 3(2) of the said
Act. However, in the said appeal, the defendaritsihherein
in collision with the villagers created sornie
taking undue advantage of the<i1'1i»teraeyllof ' f
and playing fraud and by
compromise presented bet°o_re..the
on that basis the Appellate of the
appeal. After coming atoll of the said
compromise, field the present
suit for order based by the
of the compromise petition
filed /98 is null and void on the
ground obtained by fraud and
_Inisrep"resentatioVn'.lll He also sought for permanent
injunction.T~_–~'
respondents / defendants contested the
suit. on several grounds including the jurisdiction of the
sflotzrt to entertain such suit. The Trial Court framed
several issues. After the parties led evidence, the Trial
Court dismissed the suit answering the rnate:'ial'jissues
in the negative against the plaintiff. On
plaintiff, the Lower Appellate Court the ' ;
judgment of the trial court
6. As could be seenl»fro’1T1pSec’tion Act
exclusive jurisdiction’ llquestions and
appeals enumerated is vested with
the oompeten:tV’V:~ .’}f who is the
designated Act. Against the order
of the conipeteifiti authority aggrieved party has a right of
appeal ‘top theit}’I)ilstrict:_'”_.’Judge under Sub–Section (2) of
S_ezi:tio’r1 the____Act. From this. it is clear that the
‘ of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon any of
under Section 3(1) (a) to {d} is impliedly
excluded; Though the plaintiff brought the suit for
A ‘~17 declaration that the order passed by the Appellate Court
lion the basis of the compromise is null and void on the
7
ground that it had been obtained by fraud and n1is-
representation, in effect, the suit was in the nature of
questioning the validity of the order passe_d~.f_b.yr~..the
Appellate Court in appeal under Section
In my opinion, such a suit was».~m_isconce’ivefd
not maintainable before the
the Trial Court entertainedfdfie suit .and_ffafterrecording’ t
the evidence held that the_.p1a–intiff-»is not entitled for the
relief. Unfortunately, the not go into the
question as. whether hast’jurisdiction to entertain
the Appellate Court also did not go
into However, on fact, both the
coiirts held that the plaintiff has not
, suatisfactorily established that the compromise entered
,,.ff.vas,t’.c’-Fvitiated by fraud played by the
reispovndeunts/defendants, and by misrepresentation.
.. Underfithese circumstances, I am of the considered
‘ “‘._V’op–inion that this appeal does not involve any question of
“law much less substantial question of law.
7. In this Vi€W of the matter, there is no merit in
this appeal. There are no reasons for issuir1g..’n.oti Ce_ of
the application or of the appeal to the
this View of the matter, the» ‘appIQiCe§tVio1:i
No.13546/09 is rejected.
8. Consequently, the spoea} is alsohrejeeted. In
View of rejection No.12030/09
does not survive for eonsi}:ie1*at’i.o1§ ‘V 1 ” ht
” Rs/’* V t