Allowed

Smt Rathnamma v. Jayamma

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2022WA/4046/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's order that quenched the Deputy Commissioner's mutation direction. The court held that revenue authorities can direct mutation based on a registered sale deed without adjudicating title or possession, directing parties to approach Civil Court if disputes exist.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; Single Judge's order set aside; Deputy Commissioner's order of mutation restored.

Smt Rathnamma Vs Jayamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL No.4046/2017

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE SHIVARAM ARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

¶11

SIDDARAMA ARADHYA S/O LATE MALLA ARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

¶12

GIRIJAMBIKA W/O LATE SIDDAMALLA ARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶13

J. S. JAYARAMA ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶14

APPELLANTS ARE RESIDENTS OF JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, ARKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. … APPELLANTS

¶15

(By Sri R.S.Ravi, Sr. Counsel for Sri L.Raja, Adv.)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

JAYAMMA W/O J.C.JAVARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.84, 23^RD CROSS, EAST JAYANAGAR, 12^TH MAIN, BENGALURU-560011.

¶19

LINGE GOWDA @ CHIKKA THIMAIAHA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O J.C.JAVARE GOWDA, JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, ARKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

¶20

SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE CHAME GOWDA @ DODDA THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶21

J.C.ASHOK S/O LATE CHAME GOWDA @ DODDA THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶22

J.C.PRAKASH SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶23

5(A) SMT. YESHODA W/O LATE J.C.PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶24

5(B) SRI AKSHAYA S/O LATE J.C.PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶25

SMT. J.C.MAMATHA D/O LATE CHAME GOWDA @ DODDA THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶26

J.C.PRASANNA S/O LATE CHAME GOWDA

¶27

¶28

@ DODDA THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶29

RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 7 ARE THE RESIDENTS OF JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, ARKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

¶30

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶31

MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571401.

¶32

ASST. COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶33

TAHSILDAR, SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS

¶34

(By Sri H.C.Shivaramu, Adv. for R1 to R3, R5 to R7 & also for LRs. of Deceased R5 [R5(A) & (B)]; Smt. Vani.H., AGA, for R8 to R10; V/O dt. 04.06.2019 notice to R4 is H/S)

¶35

This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition 13384/2011 dated 18.04.2017.

¶36

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

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

This intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 18^th April 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.13384/2011 (KLRRR/SUR).

¶39

¶40

The relevant facts as revealed from the records

¶41

are:

¶42

The land bearing Sy.No.32 measuring 7 acres 20 guntas situated at Jakkanahalli village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, was granted in favour of one Lingegowda, s/o Chamegowda in the year 1930 and out of the said land, 2 acres 20 guntas of land was sold by Lingegowda in favour of one Angadi Siddarama Aradhya under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.1932. Thereafterwards the name of Angadi Siddarama Aradhya and his brother J.S.Siddarama Aradhya were entered in the land revenue records of the land in question, which was the subject matter of the sale deed dated 30.06.1932. The appellants herein are the legal heirs of said Angadi Siddarama Aradhya and his brother J.S.Siddarama Aradhya. Respondent Nos.1 to 7, who claim under the original grantee allegedly got their names entered in the revenue records of the land in question somewhere in the year 2001-02 and the appellants after coming to know about the same, had challenged it before the 9^th respondent Assistant

¶43

¶44

Commissioner, who had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants had preferred a revision petition before the 8^th respondent Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 31.01.2011 allowed the said revision petition and directed to enter the name of the appellants in the revenue records of the land in question. This order was questioned by respondent Nos.1 to 7 before this court in Writ Petition No.13384/2011 and the learned Single Judge of this court vide the order impugned has allowed the said writ petition and quashed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants, who were respondent nos.4 to 7 in the writ petition, have preferred this appeal.

¶45

Learned senior counsel Sri.R.S.Ravi appearing on

¶46

behalf of the appellants submits that pursuant to the sale deed dated 30.06.1932, the entries in respect of the revenue lands were made in favour of the purchaser Angadi Siddarama Aradhya and his brother J.S.Siddarama Aradhya and the same continued till the year 1978-79 and

¶47

¶48

abruptly without any reason thereafterwards the entries were deleted. Subsequently the respondent nos.1 to 7 got entered their names clandestinely in the revenue records of the land, which was the subject matter of the sale deed dated 30.06.1932 and the Deputy Commissioner having appreciated this aspect of the matter had rightly allowed the revision petition and directed the concerned authorities to enter the name of the appellants in the revenue records of the land in question. He submits that for the purpose of seeking mutation on the basis of a registered sale deed, no period is fixed and having regard to Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the revenue authorities are bound to make necessary entries in the revenue records of the lands, which are subject matter of the registered sale deed. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Golappa –vs- Malakappa reported in ILR 1995 KAR 118. He has also referred to the documents produced by him in this appeal along with the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC and submits that those documents relate to the entries, which

¶49

¶50

stood in the name of original purchaser Angadi Siddarama Aradhya and his brother J.S.Siddarama Aradhya which had continued till the year 1978-79. He submits that those documents were placed before the Deputy Commissioner and it is only on the basis of the same, he had allowed the revision petition. He accordingly prays to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶51

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

¶52

respondent Nos.1 to 7 submits that the land in question has been granted in their favour and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He submits that the revenue authorities cannot decide the title or give any finding with regard to the possession of the land and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. He refers to a Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of Jayamma and Others –vs- The State of Karnataka and Others in Writ Petition No.6872/2013 (KLR) DD 24.01.2020 and submits that since there are disputed questions of facts with regard to the possession and title of the property, the

¶53

¶54

revenue authorities cannot give any finding and therefore, the parties are required to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs. He accordingly prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶55

We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both sides ad also perused the material available on record.

¶56

The appellants claim right and title over the land in question under Angadi Siddarama Aradhya, who had purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.1932. The records which are made available to this court by the learned Additional Government Advocate would go to show that pursuant to the said sale deed, the names of Angadi Siddarama Aradhya and his brother J.S.Siddarama Aradhya were entered in the revenue records of the land in question. The Deputy Commissioner having referred to the said entries has observed that pursuant to the sale, the entries in respect of the land in question stood in the names of Angadi Siddarama Aradhya and his brother J.S.Siddarama Aradhya till the year 1978-

¶57

¶58

79 and thereafterwards abruptly their names were deleted. Therefore, from the records it is very clear that after Angadi Siddarama Aradhya had purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.1932, the mutation in respect of the land, which was the subject matter of the said sale deed, was made in his favour. The records do not reveal as to why the said entries were subsequently discontinued or deleted. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 claim that there is a grant in their favour in respect of the land in question and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land, which is the subject matter of the grant. The respondents claim right in respect of the land in question under the original grantee Lingegowda, who is said to have executed a sale deed in respect of the land in question in favour of Angadi Siddarama Aradhya. The Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 31.01.2011 has directed the concerned authorities to enter the names of the appellants in the revenue records of the land in question on the ground that their predecessor-in-title had purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.1932

¶59

¶60

and pursuant to the same, the revenue entries were transferred in his name upto a certain period, but thereafterwards without there being any reason they were discontinued. The Deputy Commissioner has not given any finding with regard to the title of the land or with regard to the possession of the same. The entries in respect of the land in question are directed to be made in favour of the petitioners only on the strength of the registered sale deed dated 30.06.1932 pursuant to which the entries stood in the name of the purchaser for a considerable period of time.

¶61

Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and directing the appellants herein to approach the Civil Court to get their rights adjudicated under the registered sale deed dated 30.06.1932. The judgment of the Full Bench of this court in the case of Jayamma (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7, would not be

¶62

¶63

applicable to the facts of the present case as the disputed question of title and possession is not being decided in this case and the entries in the revenue records of the land in question are directed to be made on the basis of a registered sale deed. The respondent Nos.1 to 7 claim to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question inspite of the registered sale deed dated 30.06.1932 under which the original grantee had sold a portion of the granted land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas in favour of Angadi Siddarama Aradhya. If that is so, it is for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking appropriate reliefs to safeguard their possession. It is made clear that no adjudication is made in this order with regard to the title or possession of the respective parties. Since the appellants herein claim right and title under Angadi Siddarama Aradhya, who had purchased the land in question, under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.1932 from the original grantee and in whose name the revenue records of the land in question were changed subsequent to the said sale deed, we are of the considered view that

¶64

¶65

the learned Single Judge of this court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the following order:

¶66

The writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 18^th April 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.13384/2011, is set aside and resultantly, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is restored.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

KNM/-

Smt Rathnamma v. Jayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rathnamma v. Jayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Controller, Vs G. R. Nagaraju

Sri v T Munivenkatappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.T.S.Nanjappa Vs Smt.M.B.Shashikala

Sunil Chajed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Umeshaiah Vs the Director(Adm and Hrd)

R Sethuram Vs State of Karnataka