Partly allowed

Shivananjappa v. Kanthamma

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2019WP/6225/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that where a serious dispute exists regarding heirship, revenue authorities cannot declare rights. The Court quashed the revenue order and directed continuation of the deceased's name in revenue records pending the outcome of a pending civil suit.

What did the court decide?

The revenue order dated 09.01.2019 is quashed; the name of the deceased is retained in revenue records pending the outcome of the civil suit; directions for speedy disposal of the suit.

Shivananjappa Vs Kanthamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

W.P. NO.6225/2019(KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SHIVANANJAPPA S/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

¶9

2 . MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

¶10

3 . SHIVANNA S/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶11

ALL PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK – 570 010.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. AJAY J.N, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . KANTHAMMA W/O LATE MADEVU AGED MAJOR.

¶16

2 . MANJUNATHA S/O LATE MADEVU AGED MAJOR.

¶17

¶18

3 . YOGESH S/O LATE MADEVU AGED MAJOR.

¶19

RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT 492, BELAVATHA VILLAGE, R.B.I. POST KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK – 570 003.

¶20

4 . SUBBAMMA W/O LATE MADU AGED MAJOR.

¶21

5 . NAGAMMA D/O LATE MADU, AGED MAJOR.

¶22

6 . LAKSHMI D/O LATE MADU AGED MAJOR.

¶23

7 . ROOPA D/O LATE MADU, AGED MAJOR.

¶24

8 . JAGADEESH S/O LATE MADU, AGED MAJOR.

¶25

9 . KRISHNA S/O LATE MADU AGED MAJOR.

¶26

RESPONDENT NOs.4 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT NO.488 BANNIMANTAP HUDCO MYSORE – 570 015.

¶27

10 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB DIVISION MYSORE – 570 005.

¶28

¶29

11 . TAHSILDAR MYSORE TALUK MYSORE – 570 010.

¶30

12 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB DIVISION MYSORE – 570 005.

¶31

...RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. H MALATESH, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3; R-4, R-5, R-7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-10 JTO R-12)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGHNED ORDER DATED:09.01.2019 NI RP 13/2018 PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT VIDE ANNX-A.

¶34

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

In the present writ petition, order dated 09.01.2019 passed in R.P.No.13/2018 by 12^th respondent is under challenge.

¶37

Land bearing Sy.No.80/1 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas situated at Choranahalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District is the subject matter

¶38

¶39

of present writ petition. At an undisputed point of time, revenue records of subject land stood in the name of Sri Kalamadaiah s/o Kalegowda as is evident from RTC – Annexure-B which relates to the period 1969-70 to 1974-75. Respondents-1 to 3 being the wife and sons of late Madevu and respondents-4 to 9 being wife and children of late Madhu who are said to be brothers are claiming inheritance khata i.e., claiming to be legal heirs of Sri Kalamadaiah in respect of said property and as such, RRT proceedings was initiated resulting in appeal and revision taking place. In the said proceedings, petitioners are also claiming to be the legal heirs of Sri Kalamadaiah s/o Kalegowda and have sought for mutation of revenue records to their names. As such, proceedings have continued before respondents-10, 11 & 12. This ultimately resulted in the impugned order being passed in R.P.No.13/2018. After filing of the present writ petition, suit has been instituted by writ petitioners herein in O.S.No.324/2019 against respondents-1 to 9 who have been arrayed as defendants for the relief of declaration

¶40

¶41

and perpetual injunction in respect of the property which is the subject matter of revenue proceedings. As such, entries which have been made by revenue authorities will be subject to result of suit.

¶42

In the light of there being serious dispute to the heirship of Sri Kalamadaiah s/o Kalegowda, neither revenue authorities nor this court in writ jurisdiction would be in a position to declare right of the parties since, both oral and documentary evidence will have to be tendered by contesting respondents upon which civil court would be in a better position to declare the legal status of the parties and based upon it, revenue authorities would be in a position to mutate the revenue records. As such, it would suffice if a direction is issued to the revenue authorities to continue the name of deceased Sri Kalamadaiah in the revenue record i.e., RTC by entering the number of the suit which is pending before competent civil court till disposal of the suit as it would meet ends of justice and

¶43

¶44

without expressing any opinion with regard to merits of rival claims.

¶45

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) Writ petition stands disposed of. (ii) 11^th respondent shall enter the name of Sri Kalamadaiah s/o Kalegowda in the revenue records i..e, RTC insofar as it relates to Sy.No.80/1 measuring 2 acres situated at Chornahalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District along with suit No.O.S.No.324/2019 and said entry would be subject to final outcome of judgment and decree that would be passed in the suit O.S.No.324/2019. (iii) In the light of above said order, orders passed by revenue authorities namely, respondents-10, 11 & 12 which has culminated in passing of the order

¶48

¶49

dated 09.01.2019 by 12^th respondent in R.P.No.13/2018 (Annexure-A) is quashed.

¶50

(iv) It is needless to state that on such judgment and decree being passed in O.S.No.324/2019 and in compliance thereof, 11^th respondent shall mutate the revenue records in conformity with the decree.

¶51

(v) In the pending suit O.S.No.324/2019, learned trial Judge shall consider the claims of parties without being influenced by any observations made under the impugned orders as well as any observation made by this court in the present writ petition and shall independently adjudicate the claim and pass orders accordingly.

¶52

(vi) It is needless to state that trial court shall take steps for expeditious

¶53

¶54

disposal of the suit, which would be subject to both parties co-operating .

¶55

SD/-

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

*sp

Shivananjappa v. Kanthamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivananjappa v. Kanthamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union of India Vs Sri G P Chandrashekarappa

Sri K Balakrishna Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Kalamma Vs G P Chandrashekarappa

Naveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Akkayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kamalamma Vs the State of Karnataka