(Prayer: This Appeal is filed U/S 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2022 passed in Os No.133/2011 on the file of the Iv Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, dismissing the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction.)

CAV Judgment

Anu Sivaraman, J.

1. The Regular First Appeal No.229/2022 was filed against the judgment dated 14.01.2022 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Original Suit No.133/2011.

2. We have heard Shri. K.R. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri. D. M. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 (A-D), Shri. Chandrashekar Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Shri. Kiran V. Ron, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.7 to 9.

3. The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Property as owners and seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties. Alternatively, a prayer was also sought for division of Plaint 'A' Schedule Property by metes and bounds between the plaintiffs and the third defendant. There was a further injunction sought directing defendant No. 8 to effect entries in the revenue records in the name of the plaintiffs. The Suit Schedule Properties are 6 acres 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.75/4 situated as Chokkanahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The title was traced to the Sale Deed dated 18.01.1920, a registered Partition Deed dated 30.11.2006 and a decree in O.S.No.7861/1997 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. As far as the Plaint 'B' Schedule Property was concerned, a re-grant Order dated 30.07.1975 was also set up.

4. Defendants No.6 to 8, who were the State of Karnataka, the Deputy Commissioner and Tahasildar, Bengaluru North, had filed the written statement specifically stating that the property in question was Government Land and that no re-grant order had been passed in favour of defendant No.3 or anybody else and there is no record of granting of the land in question. The trial Court framed issues including whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and whether they prove possession and enjoyment of 'B' Suit Schedule Property.

5. After considering the contentions advanced, the Court found that the Sale Deed relied on by the plaintiffs did not refer to any Survey number and that the said Sale Deed cannot be relied on to accept the contention of the plaintiff that they are the owners of the suit schedule properties. Further, it was also found that after enactment of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the property stood vested in the Government and in the absence of reliable re-grant orders, the plaintiffs would have no right to claim ownership over the properties. It was found that the plaintiffs had not produced RTC pertaining to 6 acres 38 guntas of land allegedly owned by their grandfather and had also not produced the Death Certificates of either their father or the grandfather to ascertain in which year they died. The contention with regard to partition of the property was also not found to be proved. After considering all the contentions advanced, the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to either the original relief claimed by them or to the alternate relief of division of the property by metes and bounds between plaintiffs and the third defendant. The suit was dismissed with costs.

6. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised several legal contentions, we are of the opinion that in the light of the finding now recorded in Writ Appeal No.322/2023 and connected matters that there were no re-grant orders made in respect of properties in Sy.No.75/4. The said finding would apply to the suit schedule properties as well. Since the Village was admittedly a Jodi Inam Village, where the entire property stood vested in the State by issuance of the Notification under Section 1(4) of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, no person would be entitled to claim ownership of the properties in question unless there was a valid re-grant order issued by the State Government.

7. We have considered the specific question of the veracity of the re-grant order dated 30.07.1975 issued in favour of Muniraja Reddy in Writ Appeal No.322/2023 and connected matters. We have upheld the finding of the Special Deputy Commissioner as approved by the learned Single Judge that there was no such re-grant on 30.07.1975 and that the said order was a fraudulently created one.

8. In the above view of the matter, the appellants, who based their claim on the said order of grant/re-grant can have no sustainable contentions in this appeal. Their claim for title based on a fraudulent order will have to fail. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs is only to be rejected. Further, we find no error in the findings of the trial Court, which requires interference in the appeal. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of.