VEERANAN ARADHYA vs RENUKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58895
CRP No. 479 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010472572019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 479 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. VEERANNA ARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2. SRI.NIJAGUNA ARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
3. SRI.JAYASHEKAR ARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
ALL ARE
S/O LATE DODDAMALLARADHYA
ALL ARE R/AT
CHILAKAVADI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.RENUKA
W/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. SRI.V.SHIVANANJAPPA
S/O LATE VEERATHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58895
CRP No. 479 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010472572019
3. SMT.PADMA
W/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
4. SRI.MAHESH
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
5. SRI PRABHUSWAMY
S/O LATE VEERATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT
CHILAKAVADI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.P.C.SUNITHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2019 PASSED ON I.A NO.6
IN OS.NO.152/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, KOLLEGAL, REJECTING THE IA NO.6 FILED UNDER
ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR DISMISSAL OF
THE SUIT.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
06.10.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58895
CRP No. 479 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010472572019
CAV ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2019 passed in
I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.152/2019 by the Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC, Kollegal, the petitioners/defendants are before this
Court.
2. The respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs, have
filed O.S.No.152/2019 to declare that the suit schedule ‘A’
property is public road to reach the house sites and Hittalu of
the plaintiffs and other publics who are residents of Chilakavadi
Village, consequently grant mandatory injunction directing the
defendants to remove or demolish the illegal encroached
portion of PQRS construction laid by them in a portion of the ‘A’
schedule property measuring East to West 50 feet North to
South 6 feet in default on the part of the defendants, plaintiffs
are at liberty to demolish through appointing the court
commissioner in due course of law. Consequentially grant
permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their
successors, their agents, from interfering with the ‘A’ schedule
property in any manner. The defendants have filed I.A.No.6
under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC seeking
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58895
CRP No. 479 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010472572019
rejection of the plaint. That application was rejected by order
impugned.
3. While rejecting the application, the trial Court observed
that after being served with the suit summons, the defendants
appeared before the court and filed I.A. No. 6 under Order VII
Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, praying to dismiss the suit for
noncompliance with the statutory provisions of Sections 80 and
91 of the CPC. Admittedly, the plaintiffs filed the suit in a
representative capacity and obtained leave of the court by filing
I.A. No. 2 under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC. Further, as per the
order of the court, the plaintiffs have also issued public notice.
The defendants are private parties, so the question of issuing
notice under Section 80 of the CPC does not arise. Likewise, an
application under Section 91 of the CPC is not required, as the
plaintiffs have obtained leave under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC.
Section 91 of the CPC does not limit the plaintiffs' right to file a
suit independently of Section 91 of the CPC. Hence, the plaint
cannot be rejected for the reasons stated by the defendants in
their application.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58895
CRP No. 479 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010472572019
4. It is further observed that the counsel for the
defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ suit is barred under
Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In this regard,
the plaint averments do not disclose whether the suit schedule
properties are agricultural lands or otherwise. Neither the plaint
averments nor the averments of the sale deed relied on by the
plaintiffs mention that the suit properties are part of any survey
number. As such, at this stage, prima facie, it cannot be
believed that the disputed properties are part of any survey
number. Accordingly, the trial court rejected the application.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/defendants are before this
Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners/defendants submits that no document, such as a
village map, has been produced to show that the property in
question is a public road. The prayer is for a declaration that
the property must be declared a public road. Hence, the State
was a necessary party to the suit. The plaintiffs have prayed for
the relief that the suit property must be declared public
property. It is trite law that public roads belong to the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58895
CRP No. 479 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010472572019
government or other public authority, and it is the government
that must admit or deny the fact as alleged in the plaint.
Without making the government a party to the suit, the suit
itself was not maintainable. Hence, the order is unsustainable in
law. It is further contended that there is a bar under Section 61
of the Land Revenue Act for filing the present suit. In this
regard, the trial court had failed to consider the documents
produced by the plaintiffs. The partition deed dated 25.10.1993
in the family of the defendants clearly states that the property
is part of Sy.No.83, and hence the provisions of the Land
Revenue Act were attracted to the case. Though the plaintiffs
have not claimed in their suit that the property is part of a
survey number, the document produced by them clearly
establishes that the suit property is part of the survey number,
and hence it is submitted that the plaint has to be rejected and
the trial Court has failed to consider all these issues.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/plaintiffs submits that the trial court, by way of an
elaborate order, has rightly considered all aspects and has
rightly passed an order, and no interference is called for.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58895
CRP No. 479 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010472572019
7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record. Section 80 of the CPC
applies to suits against the government or against the public
officer in respect of an act purporting to have been done in an
official capacity. The present suit was against private
defendants. Accordingly, the absence of notice under Section
80 of the CPC does not, by itself, furnish a ground to reject the
plaint as presently constituted. Whether the public authority
ought to have been impleaded, whether he is a proper and
necessary party, and whether it is bad for misjoinder of proper
and necessary parties cannot be grounds to reject the plaint.
The objection under Section 91 of the CPC stands on a different
footing. The provision concerns public nuisance and other
wrongful acts affecting or likely to affect the public. The
application does not depend upon whether the defendants are
private persons or public authorities. Under Section 91(1)(b) of
the CPC, two or more persons may institute the contemplated
action with the leave of the Court even though they have
suffered no special damage. The principle relied on here is that
the principal relief is a declaration that the ‘A’ schedule property
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58895
CRP No. 479 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010472572019
is a public road. The Court must examine the factual foundation
of that prayer and of the accompanying mandatory injunction.
If the plaintiffs complain only of interference with the public
right shared by the community generally, the requirement of
Section 91 of the CPC must be considered. If the plaint
additionally discloses an invasion of an independent right, such
as an obstruction of access to their houses, the same, under
Section 91(2) of the CPC, requires examination. The reference
to access to houses is relevant, but the Court must ascertain
whether the pleaded facts disclose the independent injury
rather than presume it from the description of the road. At the
stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the questions must be
addressed by reading the plaint as a whole and considering the
documents forming part of the plaintiffs’ case. The Court cannot
assume the truth of the defense or finally determine whether
the property is a public road. Its immediate task is to decide
whether the suit, on its pleaded foundation, is barred by law.
The order impugned does not undertake the necessary
examination under Section 91 of the CPC and therefore cannot
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58895
CRP No. 479 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010472572019
be sustained merely on the ground that the defendants are
private parties. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:
ORDER
i. The order dated 09.09.2019 passed in I.A.No.6 in
O.S.No.152/2019 by the Principal Civil Judge and
set aside
JMFC, Kollegal, is and the matter is
remanded back
to the trial Court for fresh
consideration.
ii. The trial Court shall consider the objections
raised by the petitioners under Section 91 of the
CPC and shall pass the order.
iii. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is
allowed
.
iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
MR