Disposed

Sri Rudresh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2022WP/11229/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench held that although no provision prohibits revenue authorities from mutating names during a suit, generally, they should refrain. The court directed that the trial court should not rely solely on revenue entries while adjudicating the title dispute on merits.

What did the court decide?

Disposed with direction to Trial Court to decide the case on merits and not by revenue records; petitioner advised to seek injunction from Civil Court.

Sri Rudresh Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 11229 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 11229 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI RUDRESH

¶9

S/O SHIVANNA,

¶10

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶11

R/AT BHAIRASANDRA VILLAGE,

¶12

GULUR HOBLI 572118, TUMKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶18

REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶19

DEPARTMENT OF REVNUE

¶20

M S BUILDING,

¶21

DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, TUMAKURU 572101

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB DIVISION, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 572132

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU 572137

¶25

¶26

WP No. 11229 of 2022

¶27

SMT NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE GANGANNA, W/O MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE BHAIRASANDRA GULUR HOLBLI, TUMAKURU 572118

¶28

SMT LEELAVATHI D/O LATE GANGANNA, W/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O MAHADESHWARA EXTENSION, MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE VISHWANEEDAM POST, HEROHALLI, BENGALURU 560091

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA,AGA FOR R1 TO 4, SRI.FAYAZ SAB B.G, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 AND 6)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 21.03.2022 PASSED BY THE R2, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, TUMAKURU PASSED IN RP NO.104/2014-15, DTD 7.3.2015 VIDE ANENXURE-K AND THEREBY ALLOW THE RP NO.104/2014-15 FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶35

Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed

¶36

to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Sri.Fayaz Sab

¶37

¶38

WP No. 11229 of 2022

¶39

B.G, learned counsel has entered appearance for

¶40

respondent Nos.5 and 6 by filing caveat petition.

¶41

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Tumkuru District, who, while allowing the revision petition filed at the hands of the contesting respondents herein, directed that their names shall be entered in the land revenue records in respect of the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with his brothers have filed O.S.No.507/2010 in the Court of the Civil Judge, at Tumkuru,seeking declaration of title in respect of suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction. It is the contention of the petitioner that Sri.S.R.Gowda, who adopted the petitioner's mother left behind a registered will dated 05.11.1993 bequeathing the properties in question in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel would also submit that the contesting respondent Nos.5 and 6, along with their mother, had earlier filed

¶42

¶43

WP No. 11229 of 2022

¶44

O.S.No.203/1994 during the life time of Sri S.R.Gowda seeking a declaration against 3 sale deeds and any other deed/instrument/document purportedly executed by Sri

¶45

S.R.Gowda as not binding on the plaintiffs and that they

¶46

are ineffective and inoperative. According to the learned counsel, such a prayer would also include the will left behind by Sri S.R.Gowda. However, during the pendency of the suits, the revenue authorities could not have changed the katha by mutating the names of the contesting respondents.

¶47

Per contra, it is sought in the contended at the hands of the contesting respondents that Sri S.R.Gowda has suffered as paralysis stroke more than a year prior to filing of the suit and Sri S.R.Gowda could not have executed any documents and he was not in a proper state of mind to execute those documents.

¶48

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties

¶49

and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that

¶50

¶51

WP No. 11229 of 2022

¶52

although there is no specific provision which would create an embargo against the revenue authorities to change the katha or mutate the names during the pendency of the suit, nevertheless, generally this Court would direct that the revenue authorities should not change the names in the katha during the pendency of the suit. The revenue entries have presumptive value and nothing more. However, if the petitioner wanted to ensure that the contesting respondents do not deal with the property in question in any manner whatsoever or create any encumbrance during the pendency of the suit, appropriate directions/temporary injunction could have been sought at the hands of the Civil Court.

¶53

In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that during the pendency of the suit, the kathas have been transferred from the name of Sri S.R. Gowda in favour of the contesting respondents herein. Nonetheless, such a transfer of katha in favour of the mother of contesting respondents should not prejudice the case of

¶54

¶55

WP No. 11229 of 2022

¶56

the petitioner before the Trial Court. The Trial Court is required to consider the case on its merits and not go only by the entries made in the revenue record.

¶57

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Needless to observe that if any application is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the contesting respondents/ defendants in O.S.No.507/2010 to ensure that the property in question is not alienated during the pendency of the suit, the trial Court shall consider the same and pass necessary orders.

¶58

Ordered accordingly.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

Sri Rudresh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rudresh v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri E Krishnappa Vs the Assistant Commisisoner

Papayya M N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka Rep. by

Sri. Ningegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Patalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Munilakshmamma Vs the Secretary