Partly allowed

Sri. Manoj Naik v. Manohar Nagappa Naik

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2021WA/44/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a Single Judge's order permitting revenue mutation in a share of disputed land. The court granted leave to appeal and held that the mutation must await the outcome of a pending regular appeal regarding the entire survey number.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file appeal; the order directing revenue entry is held subject to the result of the pending regular appeal; the appeal is disposed of.

Sri. Manoj Naik Vs Manohar Nagappa Naik — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶7

W.A.No.44/2020 (KLR – RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Sri. Manoj Naik, S/o Late Sumana Naik, Aged about 35 years, Residing at No.69/A, Ground Floor, 21^st Cross, II Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 018.

¶10

Smt. Komala Naik, D/o Late Nagappa Naik, Aged about 91 years, Residing at No.69/A, First Floor, 21^st Cross, II Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 018.

¶11

Smt. Meera Naik, D/o late Nagappa Naik, Aged about 78 years, No.34, Sathyanarayana Layout,

¶12

¶13

1^st ‘C’ Cross, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 560 079.

¶14

Smt. Anusuya Prakash Naik, W/o Late Prakash Nagappa Naik, Aged about 73 years, Cyprus Oak, Flat No.005, Chowdeswari Layout, Begur Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 068. … Appellants

¶15

(By Sri. Ranjan Kumar K, Advocate)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Manohar Nagappa Naik, S/o Late Nagappa Naik, Aged about 79 years, Residing at House No.726, 8^th Main, 7^th Sector, HSR Layout, Bengaluru – 560 034.

¶18

The Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar – 581 301.

¶19

The Assistant Commissioner, Kumta Sub-Division, Kumta – 581 343, Uttara Kannada District,

¶20

The Tahsildar, Kumta Taluk, Kumta – 581 343.

¶21

¶22

The Revenue Inspector, Kumta Hobli, Kumta Taluk, Kumta – 581 343, Uttara Kannada District.

¶23

Sri. Ashoka Nagappa Naik, S/o late Nagappa Naik, Aged about 69 years, Residing at Harody Village, Valagalli Post – 581 343. Kumta Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. … Respondents

¶24

(Miss Kavitha Bhagwat, Advocate for Sri. M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate for R-1, Sri. C.N.Mahadeshwaran, AGA for R-2 to R-5, Sri. Ganapathi.S.Shastri, Advocate for R-6 )

¶25

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 11/12/2019 in WP No.25494/2019 (KLR – RES) passed by the learned Single Judge and Etc.

¶26

This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, NAGARATHNA, J., delivered the following:

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

This appeal is listed along with I.A.No.1/2020 seeking

¶29

leave to file an appeal.

¶30

¶31

Learned counsel for appellants submitted that first

¶32

appellant is the grand son of late Nagappa Rama Naik through late Sumana Naik. Appellants No.2 and 3 are the daughters of late Nagappa Naik and appellant No.4 is the daughter-in-law of late Nagappa Naik being wife of late Prakash Nagappa Naik. They have sought leave to file this appeal, so as to assail order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2019 passed in WP.No.25494/2019. The said writ petition was filed by one of

¶33

the sons of Nagappa Naik, viz., Manohar Naik, assailing the order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Uttara Kannada District, Karwar/respondent No.2 herein (Annexure-K), as well as order dated 30.03.2017 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Kumta Sub – division, Kumta, respondent No.3 –herein, (Annexure-J) before the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has directed respondent authorities to enter name of the writ petitioner to an extent of 2 guntas in sy.No.89/1B of Haleheravatta village, Kumta Taluk. He contended that such

¶34

¶35

an order could not have been made in the face of the decree passed in O.S.No.67/2003 and pendency of R.A.No.85/2006 before the First Appellate Court. That the pendency of the said proceeding before the First Appellate Court was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. That these appellants have also right, title and interest in Sy.No.89/1B in an extent of 07 guntas which fell to the share of Ashok Nagappa Naik in a partition between him and his brother Manohar Naik. That subsequent to the partition between sons of Nagappa Naik, an extent of 2 guntas of land in sy.No.89/1B of Haleheravatta village, is claimed as the share of the writ petitioner, Manohara Nagappa Naik. Learned Single Judge has confirmed the revenue entries, made in his name without being notified about the pendency of the civil proceedings between the parties. Learned counsel for appellants, therefore, contended that leave may be granted to these appellants to assail the order of learned Single Judge and seek quashing of the same by allowing I.A.No.1/2020.

¶36

¶37

We have heard learned counsel for respondent No.1-

¶38

writ petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent

¶39

No.6.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 - writ petitioner contended that there is no merit in this appeal and order of the learned Single Judge would not call for any interference as it is pursuant to the partition entered into between the parties on 11.02.1987, that an extent of 2 guntas fell to the share of the writ petitioner and revenue entries were sought to be mutated pursuant thereto. Learned Single Judge has rightly granted relief to the writ petitioner and therefore, leave may not be granted to the appellants herein to assail the order of learned Single Judge, consequently, the application as well as the appeal may be dismissed.

¶41

Learned counsel for respondent No.6, who was also respondent No.5 in the writ petition, very fairly submitted that

¶42

¶43

he has not assailed the order of learned Single Judge. However, he is in possession of the entire 07 guntas of land in Sy.No.89/1B and he also did not dispute the fact that pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.67/2003, partially decreeing the suit, R.A.No.85/2006 is pending before the First Appellate Court. He contended that appropriate orders may be made in this appeal.

¶44

Learned Additional Government Pleader also submitted that appropriate order may be made on the application as well as in the appeal.

¶45

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we find that the dispute is with regard to the extent of 07 guntas in Sy.No.89/1B, which fell to the share of Nagappa Naik at a partition that took place between himself and his brother. The controversy in this matter is with regard to division of said extent of land on the demise of Nagappa Naik. The appellants have controverted the alleged partition, which

¶46

¶47

is stated to have been taken place on 11.02.1987. Assailing the same, O.S.No.67/2003 was filed by late Sumana Naik, one of the daughters of late Nagappa Naik. The said suit was partly decreed, against which R.A.No.85/2006 has been filed by her and others is pending consideration before the First Appellate Court. It is not in dispute that Sy.No.89/1B measuring 07 guntas is the subject matter of the said proceeding. In the circumstances, we think that leave could be granted to the appellants to file this appeal and appeal can be disposed of by observing that the order of the learned Single Judge directing entry of the name of writ petitioner in revenue records to an extent of 02 guntas in Sy.No.89/1B would be subject to the result of R.A.No.85/2006.

¶48

It is needless to observe that since there is a Regular Appeal pending in respect entire Sy.No.89/1B, at this stage, it is not possible to categorically state as to in whose name any extent of land in Sy.No.89/1B is to be entered in the revenue records. Therefore, with the aforesaid observations, appeal

¶49

¶50

stands disposed. The said entry is subject to the result of the suit in O.S.No.67/2003/R.A.No.85/2006.

¶51

I.A.No.1/2020 stands disposed. Consequently,

¶52

I.A.No.2/2020 also stands disposed.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

psg*

Sri. Manoj Naik v. Manohar Nagappa Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manoj Naik v. Manohar Nagappa Naik

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

Dr Ca a S Vishnu Bharath Vs State of Karnataka

Samarpana (Cultural and Social Service Organisation) Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri Mallikarjuna M M Vs Smt Nagashree

M/S Thematics Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Commissioner

Sri Vinayaka Education Society (Regd) Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri S Raghunathan Vs Union of India