Petitioners challenged mutation orders confirming entries in record of rights based on a set-aside compromise, claiming title via a disputed will. The court disposed of the petition, holding that records remain subject to the outcome of pending final decree proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO.100073/2024(KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6514 WP No. 100073 of 2024
R/O: TOTADAMANE, MANTAGI ROAD, HANGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. (PETITIONER NOS.3 TO 5 ARE MINORS, R/BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1)
AND:
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-E BEARING NO. RTS/RA/CR-66/22-23 DATED 24.08.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, AT ANNEXURE-D BEARING NO. RTS/AP/SR/122/2021-22 AND MR NO. H156/2021-2022 CERTIFIED BY RESPONDENT NO.2/REVENUE INSPECTOR, HANGAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking grant of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.08.2024 vide Annexure-E passed by respondent No.4-the Deputy Commissioner, confirming the order passed by respondent No.3-the Assistant Commissioner, dated 26.08.2022 produced as per Annexure-D.
decreed, the final decree proceeding in FDP.No.1/2011 was initiated. The petitioners were also impleaded in the proceedings after the death of Kashappa on the basis of the registered Will left behind him. The respondents inter se entered into compromise in FDP.No.1/2011, excluding the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed W.P.No.146946/2020. The same was came to be allowed and the compromise entered into between the respondents was set aside. The final decree proceeding is still pending for consideration. Even though, compromise petition was came to be set aside, the revenue records were mutated on the basis of the said compromise, and it continued to be in the names of respondents. Therefore, the same was challenged by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal by passing the order as per Annexure-D.
also came to be dismissed, by passing the order dated 24.08.2023, as per Annexure-E. Therefore, the petitioners
are before this Court seeking to quash both the orders. Accordingly learned counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing the petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
respondent No.2 to 4 supporting the contention taken by respondent No.1 submitted that, since the matter is still pending before the Civil Court, entry in the record of rights will be subject to result of the final decree proceeding and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Perused the materials on record.
petitioners was one of the defendants in O.S.No.37/1987 as he is one of the sharers of the property along with respondent No.1. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit O.S.No.37/1987, Kashappa had executed the registered Will bequeathing his share in the property in favour of the petitioners. The suit O.S.No.37/1987 was decreed quantifying the share to each of the shares. FDP.No.1/2011 was filed for partition by metes and bounds. During the pendency of the final decree proceeding, Kashappa appears to have died and the petitioners were impleaded on the basis of the Will said to
have been executed by Kashappa. Even though there was a compromise between the sharers in the final decree proceeding, the petitioners were not parties to the same. Admittedly, the said compromise decree was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.146946/2020. It is not in dispute that FDP.No.1/2011 is still pending for consideration. Therefore, the names to be entered in the record of rights will be subject to result of FDP.No.1/2011. However, at present record of rights stands in the name of respondent No.1 on the basis of the compromise petition which is already set aside by this Court. But the facts remains that the final decree proceeding is still pending and execution of the Will by Kashappa is disputed by respondent No.1. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the name of respondent No.1 found in record of rights shall be subject to the result of FDP.No.1/2011 pending before the Civil Court. With this observation, the writ petition could be disposed off.
holding that the entry in the record of rights shall be
subject to the result of FDP.No.1/2011 pending before the
Civil Court.
SD/JUDGE
EM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the entry in the record of rights should remain in the name of the respondent while final decree proceedings regarding mutation are pending.
Whether the disputed will executed during pendency of a suit can override the record of rights based on a compromised decree set aside earlier.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.146946/2020Referred¶50
Smt. Shruti W/O. Shankar Masankatti
Miss. Vaishnavi D/O. Shankar Masankatti
Kamalavva W/O. Yallappa Halekoti
The Revenue Inspector, Hanagal
The Assistant Commissioner, Haveri
The Deputy Commissioner, Haveri
M.G. Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
