Dismissed

Vinay @ Venkatraman S/O Parameshwar Hegde, v. Manjunath Parameshwar Hegde

Karnataka HC3 Apr 2024WP/103771/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash Deputy Commissioner's order directing mutation in revenue records relying on his late mother's Will. Court held revenue authorities cannot determine Will validity and that pending civil suit precludes interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no interim relief granted as a civil suit is pending.

Vinay @ Venkatraman S/O Parameshwar Hegde, Vs Manjunath… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6104 WP No. 103771 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.103771/2016(KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VINAY @ VENKATRAMAN S/O. PARAMESHWAR HEGDE, AGE:49 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: PADIGERI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: NORTH KANARA.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI B. V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MANJUNATH PARAMESHWAR HEGDE, AGE:63 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: PADIGERI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: NORTH KANARA.

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

PARAMESHWAR MANJAPPA HEGDE, AGE:93 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: PADIGERI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: NORTH KANARA.

¶16

VISHWESHWAR PARAMESHWAR HEGDE, AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: PADIGERI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: NORTH KANARA.

¶17

VIJAYANANDA PARAMESHWAR HEGDE, AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: PADIGERI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: NORTH KANARA.

¶18

RAVINDRA PARAMESHWAR HEGDE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: PADIGERI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: NORTH KANARA.

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6104 WP No. 103771 of 2016

¶20

SMT. SUDHA W/O. VISHWANATH HEGDE, AGE:61 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KANSUR (KODSUR), TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: NORTH KANARA.

¶21

SMT. GOWRI @ SHANTALA W/O MRUTYUNJAYARAO HIREMANE, AGE:59 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TALAGUPPA, TQ: SAGAR, DIST: SHIMOGA.

¶22

SMT. GANGA W/O. MANJUNATH BHAT, AGE:57 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TALAGUPPA, TQ: SAGAR, DIST: SHIMOGA.

¶23

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA, DIST: KARWAR.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SIRSI, TQ:SIRSI, DIST:KARWAR.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. JYOTHI B. HURAKADLI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI V.G.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7 AND R8; R2, R3, R4 ARE SERVED; SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R9 AND R10)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.9, IN NO.RB/RTR/CR36/2014-15 DATED 24.03.2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6104 WP No. 103771 of 2016

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 24.03.2016 passed by respondent No.9 produced as per Annexure-A.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 is the father of the petitioner and respondent Nos.1, 3 and 8 are his siblings. The properties bearing Survey No.150 measuring 6 guntas and Survey No.164/1+2 measuring 11 guntas situated at Padigeri village were given to the mother of the petitioner in the family arrangements between the petitioner and the respondents. Therefore, she is the absolute owner in possession of the same. During her life time, she executed Will in favour of the petitioner bequeathing the properties in his favour. Later she died. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application to mutate his name in the records of right. The father and brothers of the petitioner have never objected for such mutation. But respondent No.1 challenged the mutation entry by preferring an

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6104 WP No. 103771 of 2016

¶34

appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Sirsi. Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal confirming the certification of MR No.H1/13-14 dated 05.11.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 has preferred the revision before Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada. Deputy Commissioner, passed the impugned order directing the Tahasildar to enter the names all the legal heirs in the revenue records, which will be subject to the decision of the Court. Therefore, petitioner has approached Court seeking to quash the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶35

Learned counsel submits that since Will executed by mother of the petitioner is not disputed by any of the legal heirs, the Deputy Commissioner, could not have passed the order as per Annexure-A. Therefore prays for allowing the petition.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.9 and 10 opposing the petitioner submitted the petitioner is placing reliance on the Will said to have executed by his mother. Therefore,

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6104 WP No. 103771 of 2016

¶38

the Revenue Authority will not have any right to consider genuinity of the Will for the purpose of the mutating the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order which is valid and in accordance with law. It is only the Civil Court which can determine the validity of the Will.

¶39

Learned counsel further submits that the suit O.S.No.401/2017 filed by the petitioner for declaration his title and for permanent injunction is pending consideration before learned II Additional Civil Judge, Sirsi. Therefore, petitioner can seek necessary relief in the said suit. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶40

Perused the material on record.

¶41

Only point that is to be considered by this Court is whether the revenue officials can determined the validity of the Will said to have been executed by mother of the petitioner, bequeathing the properties referred to in the petition in his favour. It is relevant to refer the decision of this Court in R.V.GOPALKRISHNA VS.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6104 WP No. 103771 of 2016

¶43

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA AND OTHERS¹ .

¶44

The parties were referred to the Civil Court for establishing genueiness of the Will. Placing reliance on the said decision, the writ petition in BASANAGOUDA S/O TAMMANGOUDA AND ANOTHER VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD AND OTHERS² was also disposed off. The position of law is very well settled that it is only the Civil Court which can determine the validity of the Will and the said order can be the basis for the purpose of mutating the names in the revenue records. When admittedly the civil suit is pending consideration before the jurisdictional Court, I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Petition is dismissed.

¶47

SD/JUDGE

¶48

AC/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

¶49

1 2010(1) KLJ 263

¶50

2 W.P.NO.100067/2023 D.D. 29.02.2024

Vinay @ Venkatraman S/O Parameshwar Hegde, v. Manjunath Parameshwar Hegde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay @ Venkatraman S/O Parameshwar Hegde, v. Manjunath Parameshwar Hegde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basappa S/O. Siddlingappa Hulyal Vs the Municipal Commissioner

Smt. Shanta W/O Shivagond Kambale Vs Smt. Bangarevva W/O Yamanappa Doddamani

Shri. Basavaraj S/O Shivaputrappa Ashi Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sri. Ratnappa S/O Balu Kalatage Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt. Nanda S/O Anand Mannapur Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishnaraj S/O Srinivasrao Punaji, Vs the Assistant Director of Land Record