Dismissed

Sri K.M.Eregowda v. Smt K S Sathyamma

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2021WP/35344/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging orders setting aside mutation entries. Court held that since predecessor in title had no valid title, petitioner could not claim ownership. Dismissed writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order of 25.08.1997 upheld; petitioner open to establish title subject to limitation.

Sri K.M.Eregowda Vs Smt K S Sathyamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.35344 OF 2009 ( KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.M.EREGOWDA S/O. MANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING OF KILARA VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶9

SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS.

¶10

1(a). SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O. LATE K.M.EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶11

1(b). SRI. JETHESH BHABU K.E. S/O LATE K.M.EREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶12

1(c). SRI. RAGHU .E S/O. LATE K.M.EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶13

1(d). SRI. SHARATH KUMAR E S/O. LATE K.M.EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KILARA VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶15

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE HON'BLE COURT ORDER DATED 14.12.2015)

¶16

... PETITIONERS

¶17

[BY SRI. ANANDA .K, ADVOCATE]

¶18

¶19

AND:

¶20

SMT. K.S.SATHYAMMA W/O. LATE KALEGOWDA MAJOR

¶21

SRI. GULIKEMPEGOWDA S/O. LATE. KEMPAIAH MAJOR

¶22

SRI. K.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. KALEGOWDA MAJOR

¶23

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KILARA VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK.

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA

¶25

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA

¶26

THE TAHSILDAR, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA …RESPONDENTS

¶27

[BY SRI. S.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2; SRI. MURALI N., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R4-6]

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF ASST. COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUBDIVISION MANDYA IN R.MISC.NO.58/95-96 DTD. 25.08.1997, VIDE ANN-H & ON THE FILE OF R4, DEPUTY COMISSIONER, MANDYA IN R.A.NO.118/2000 DTD. 26.03.2004, VIDE ANN-J AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.08.1997 passed by the respondent No.5 in R.Misc.No.58/1995-96, which was confirmed in revision by the respondent No.4 in R.A.No.118/2000 by the order dated 26.03.2004.

¶33

The land in question bearing Sy.No.341/26 of Keelara Village, Keregodu Hobli, Mandya Taluk, measures 5 guntas. The petitioner claimed that the said land was owned and possessed by Kempaiah which was partitioned, by which Gulikempegowda succeeded to the aforesaid properties as his share. It is claimed that the said Gulikempegowda exchanged his property with the respondent No.3 herein, consequent to which his name was entered in the revenue records. It is claimed that the respondent No.3 conveyed the property to the petitioner herein, in terms of a sale deed dated 01.02.1995. The name of respondent No.3 was rounded off in column No.9 of the RTC extract and the name of the petitioner was entered. This entry was challenged by the respondent No.1 in

¶34

¶35

R.Misc.No.56/1995-96, who claimed that Sy.No.341/26 fell to the share of her branch. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also filed O.S.No.284/1997 for perpetual injunction in respect of the very same property. The said suit was dismissed and R.A.No.28/2006 was filed.

¶36

The respondent No.5 in terms of the order dated 25.08.1997 allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation entries. The said order passed by the respondent No.5 was confirmed by the respondent No.4, in terms of the order dated 26.03.2014 which is impugned in the present petition.

¶37

The Regular Appeal filed in R.A.No.28/2006 was allowed and the suit in O.S.No.284/1997 was decreed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent No.1 filed R.S.A.No.1868/2006 before this Court which was allowed in terms of the judgment dated 29.07.2009. This Court found that the predecessor in title of the petitioner had no valid title to transfer the property in question to the petitioner.

¶38

¶39

In the face of the above findings, the question that remains to be considered is whether the petitioner could still claim to be the owner of the property in question and whether he could still claim that his predecessor in title (respondent No.3), had any title to the property in question. It is trite that once the predecessor in title of petitioner had no title to the property, he could not have transferred the same to the petitioner. Though the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner was on the assertion that the suit property fell to the share of respondent No.1, however this Court has recorded a positive finding that the predecessor in title of the petitioner did not have any title.

¶40

The impugned order passed by the respondent No.5 dated 25.08.1997 deserves to be up held. Hence, this writ petition lacks merit, the same is dismissed.

¶41

It is open for the petitioner to establish his title in accordance with law, subject however to the law of limitation.

¶42

¶43

Any observations made in this writ petition shall not affect the establishment of right, title or interest of the petitioner to the property in question.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

GJM

Sri K.M.Eregowda v. Smt K S Sathyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K.M.Eregowda v. Smt K S Sathyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R S Gopalkrishna Vs Shyamala Hegde

Chidananda Reddy Vs T Thimma Reddy @ Thadaparthi Thimmanna

Sri Somegowda Vs Assistant Commissioner

Sri M S Balaji Prasad Vs Sri Narasimha Murthy

Hindu Kote Garadi (R) Vs Sheikh Budan Sab

Sri Nanjamariyappa Vs State of Karnataka