'THE HON'BLE MR. ausncs A;N_gV§__NU"(§'é)i%>!3xLA'€§§C§!3§ii3»i\V
IN THE mean COURT 0F KARNATAKA AT BANC5ALOF1E..:
EEATED THIS THE 23"' DAY 05-' AUGUST, 20:3?" ' '
PRESENT_m_
THE HOBFBLE MRJUSTICE s.R.:"5At%iN$RMATi4 %'
& V.
aggggg F1R§T_ 5 Pggg%%;;%fij;9_;3_1_.L»§L (29 ga
BETWEEN:
1
V "'B§éfi*A§A'H«'_
S/0v.LVATE..%wCi1INNAPPA
.'_T.Ac;s13-Asot.IT_15s YEARS
HANUMANPF}A-- V --
5/0 LATE H3\NL.§M'AEAH~é '
AGES AE<}U'"F.32..¥EARS._,_ '
Rm: cH1xKA_a£._NAvAaA;..'i'tés-:§1=va§;r§THAPURA
H03iJ.,..TBAmGALag§zE :~a_Ca5m1"
BYLAPPA V ' --
s/0 LATE HANl5i't1}3.1Ai~€..
AGED ABOUT 35 'iF,ARS~--. %
Rim CHI'i<KA3ANAVfixRA; YESWANTHAPURA
§tOl?:Lii, BANGALORE mmu mwx
'R/'IN CHIKKABANAVARA, YESWANTHAPURA
A »..f1OBl.I.,.{5fKE'5lGALORE NORTH IKALUK
900113. BYLAIAH
» ; _S,'OV IXNANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
' Rm: CHIKKABANAVARA, YESWANTHAPURA
HOBLI, BANGALORE NORU1 "IALUK
HANUMAKKA
SIO LATE MARIAWA
MBED ABOUT 62 YEARS
.4
RIIN CHiKKABANAVARA, YESWANTHAPURA
HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE CHIKKAMARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RIIN CHIKl<ABANAVARA,YESWANTHAPURA V T'
HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK:-'
i'lANUMANTHARA.}U
S/0 LATE BYLANJANEYA
AGED ABOUT 2? YEARS
RAN CHIKKABANAVARA, YESWfixhfI'iiAPURA._V_ é
HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH
BYLAPPA T
5/0 BVLANJANEYA __
AGEDABOUT 2?_YEARS...... 2 .
R/IN CHIKKABA.NfiwAR£i, vsswafimgpum'
HOBLI, BANc;ALo;'§;:a.i; «Q1313 "i"'ALUK_ "V
K RAMAN.iANE;YA, » =
5/0 LATE,WDDF<M:P5RAP?A" "
AGEDVABOUTVT38 YEARS", ' _
R/IN cflIK:vaAB:;aAyARA4,%._YE.swANTHAPuRA
H0Bu;_BANGALoR.E«uusmg [ALUK
- V APPELLANTS
(BY SR1: ;S~D_N PRR.-SAD,' MN. UMESH, SMT. M.B. YASHODA,
1
~.(';i1.3;.x:é)x§€i_reA1'.éi;H""
$10 LATE Px§s'i"EL 3ADIYAPPA
AGED :29 mans
RXOF CHIKKABANAVARA, YESWANTHAPURA
.. B;§wGm_0RE NORTH TALUK
' 3AvAi_AKsi-miDEvAM MA
'W10 (3 CHIKKANNAIAH
_.'§AGED 72 vemzs
R/0? CHIKKABANAVARA, YESWANTHARJRA
EANGALORE NORTH TALUK
SMT NARASAMMA
W/0 LATE CHIKKA THIMMAIAH
AGED 62 YEARS _
R/OF CHIKKABANAVARA, YESWANTHAPURA ;
3ANGAL{)RE NORTH 'l'"ALUi( _ é
VEJAYAKUMAR ' A.
SID C CHIKKANNAIAH V
AGED ABQUT 40 YEARS
R/OF CHIKKABANAVASZA, vesvvaimi-5PuéA-- '
BANGALORE NORTH I'Ai,§}K
szzm1vAsAMum HY
5/0 GZCHEKKANNAIAH V' A
AGED ABOUT 37--YEARf3"' %
R/OF CHIKKABMAVARA. '._¥'ESwANTfiAP_.Ul§A'
BANGALORE'«--N0:§'tjr; i.Aju._1K_
JAGADISH--{,§RAL!1) .. % ..
510 G"CfiI.KKANN'i%;IAH"'-.»
AGet)AeouTg7yE.AR$ % %
RIOF'CHIKKABA.'\iP.VARA,;~ffE*SWANTHAPURA
BANGALORE N(1RTHf m~.:,_u<-
s/xi; cr~::KKATH1.M'MA1AH
A(;Eu»_ABauT 45 YEA"
« Rx/CF CHIKKAEANAVARA, YESWANTHAPURA
BANAGAl_.ORE_NG.R'i"H m.uilaintiffs on 26.7.82 and in pursuance thereof, the
"i'ahsiidar, Benoaiore North Taluk, issued xnotice of
evictien to the defendants to vacate and deliver "
of the re-granted properties en the ground
are in contravention of Sec.5(3§j>AAtVof"tn'e
defendants questioned the said con'rse'--of in'
itos.2065?-660182, in which""'t«t§Vfie pieint_itfseWeVise
irnpleaded as the respondentsi§'""'iihistififiourtéétnotiting the
fact that the mater is coxretred ‘the in the case
of LAKsHMAnnee:io9Ari__A’V’ KARNATAKA
(1931(1) i<L=:J" petitioners are not
unauthevrisédr Iiabie to be evicted
and hy:"*.an.'_ quashed the order
impugned iiirtne petittnin, to the extent it directed the
..evict'i_o<n the vrritvv-petitioners (defendants herein), from
ht'».theViands.,:_"'i5i1ve::"said order has become finai.
' contention of the learned counsei for the
:apneiiants"§s that, pursuant to the said eviction notice, the
defendants were evicted and possession was deiivered to
predecessors of the plaintiffs and they have been in
" Vcontinixous possession and enjoyment. In Kjupport of the
said contentien, there is no ciear and specific pieadingn
the piaint and neither in the Triai Cami: nor befeg"e–~«t.his:13
Court, any materiai is aiso produced. 0n the cont.r,e}'3r,Vit::is._
an admitted fact that the eviction notice itsei? fé\ai}':'1,S 'eua.shed,r 'V, t if
by this Court holding that they are_not iiehiie to
and thus, the defendants (writ petititniers) c6rtih'u~ed be
in possession and en3'oymerift;~~..,_ it
8. Learned counsei for”theZ’eh_peiiaVhts chiaitiends that,
before the aerergeta71n4:saii§j§9euic!hie theiiir written statement to
the suit, the plaiht’ihes__tieeh«..re}ect.ed, which is iilegal. The
contentions is’ devoid at ‘herusai of Order VII Rule
11 CFC, makes “cie,er’that, the reievant facts which need
ts he iuedkediiitizte’ fer an appiication thereunder, is
the’1evVerrr§en.tsj»..%ivnuthe~’piaint. The triai Court can exercise
pewter une:ier,i’iE~i*:Ae said provision, at any stage of the suit
“dieters, contiiusion of trial. Fer the purpose of deciding
under Order VII Rules 11(3) and (d), the
in the piaint are materiai and the plea taken if
ang}, by the defendants in the written staternentgweuid he
1,
/.
,
11
and thereby the defendants have remained in V.
and enjoyment of the properties.
10. Though the plain: contaiinioéiiz’ para
with regard to the cause of action to4’ine–suit, [t:ii.e’A’qu’asvti.o’nvi ‘V
is, whether a reai cause of actéoifiias been ‘seifr the
piaint or something puréiy.’_iiiu_3o’iy’ ii;a.sV’V”‘Deen stéteéi with a
View to overcome the profit-ieions:’t:on.t§i’ned’__in Ruie :11 of
Cirder V13: cpc, -is newfé:ettiéoij_ip.os§§ion of iaw that,
ciever d:faftin_d”oi.iea§ivng iiiiieivpns of cause of action, are not:
pemwitteoin iaw and~–o’–ciee:f”‘ri’§nt to sue, snouid be shown
in thejipiaint.’éflifeaiiino of the piaint shows ‘that, there is
no’ réai rf>:¥ius”e..éof actioniand what has been set out in the
‘1r’:e!a:int’ ié3:T*nAo’ivnVienV§.~ but iliusory. The plaintiffs having
aami:ieaV%i–ti§§i,’iV their predecessors had sold the suit.
i3″»-‘~.__Vs»ci}eduie,f§rope:ties in favour of the defendants and had
TV.:i;12ii’:ei3fA.’.«’with possession of the same and that the action of
Tahsiidar to evict the defendants having been
. Tqisestioned in this Court and the writ petition having been
allowed quashing the eviction notice, in thfiabsence of
14
13. Learned counsel for_ th£2’rr”appei-i4oa.oc4″‘oracec§j’.
reliance on the decision of the Hon’b§oV S:-§o’rorrie
the case of ‘MAYAR (H.K.) LTD. A:~{o.oTHE’R$ ‘vs;}rov§{N’ERs:
3. PARTIES, VESSEL r-mi. Foa*rio%NE’~–.c,oo_tEx§R’Ess _.3A:vo
omens’ reported in (2ooej–§sc:,:_ ifi(}D fo.’:con’tend that, to
reject a plaint on the’ cause
of action, the §p%’aiivnj: read, since
cause of act.ion_A’i’s,.,fé’ are required to
be proveéVov.cofor’cr#$i$?f*i’i=§:Gcr’t’h§Hre::er. The said decision,
primariiy was””roIatin g_ft o.’.suopression of rnateriai facts in
_the plai,,n§. ‘V We haiiearcod rhe piaiht in its entirety. Except
i3.eiog=ac.Eo§.Iér«c§ravfting, creating an iitusion of 3 cause of
actioo;”._9_n “‘a«””rn§ear:i’rxgfui reading, it does not disciose a
V vcause of’action; “considering the admitted facts of the case,
‘:§’o’!:i:ced supra.
E14. The Triai Court considering the question
fifnether the plaint filed by the appeilants was Home to be
rejected under Order VII Ruie 110:1) of the Code, has heid
that the same is barred by the provision of thmfiuct. The
X _
16
Triai Court with regard to its finciing under Orcier
11(a) is correct, which itseif wouid be sufficieriA’ti_:'”fi;:ifAi.:i:iié M
ultimate decision to dismiss this appeai. ”
15. For the foregoing oésc:si_fssioi§,.,_ia&e tiiiéitiw tifla
triai Court has rightiy arrived i;onoiiis.iVo_ii’: tho: the
piaint does not disciose oif’vAéc:;tijoiiA”‘to» fiie ti1 e suit.
The litigation is, vexatieiisii. “.i’s… ;:=;ifi«s.’=:i*it|%s and
corisequentiy, ii: No ground is
made out to the appaai being
without n}1eri!_:_. is; ‘iii.er§=._iiiy rajééied. _’
Sdfié
Iudgg
Sdfw
Judge
“if ~sac.5′