Dismissed

Appanna Kareppa Kitroji v. Parasharam Bahirjee Desai

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2024WP/107973/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was sustained to quash an executive officer's order rejecting an application to add legal heirs to the property records. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner could not challenge the mutation based on a registered sale deed from 1978 after 35 years without earlier objecting to the conveyance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition assailing the impugned order rejecting the application for adding legal heirs was dismissed.

Appanna Kareppa Kitroji Vs Parasharam Bahirjee Desai — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7314 WP No. 107973 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 107973 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI APPANNA KAREPPA KITROJI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAYANNA GALLI, BALEKUNDRI (K.H.) TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591124.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. DEEPAK C. MAGANUR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SHRI PARASHARAM BAHIRJEE DESAI, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASARIKATTI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591124.

¶11

SHRI VIKRAM S/O. PARASHRAM DESAI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASARIKATTI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591124.

¶12

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

PRAMILA W/O. NANDKUMAR DHEKULIKAR, PRAMILA D/O. PARASHRAM DESAI (BEFORE MARRIAGE) AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BASARIKATTI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591124.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶16

THE SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, MASTAMARDI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591124.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. RAVIRAJ C. PATIL ADV. FOR R4; R2, R3 & R5 SERVED)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7314 WP No. 107973 of 2016

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:17.04.2015 BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYAT IN APPLICATION NO.16/12-13 ON INTERIM APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXII, R/W. SEC.151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AND APPLICATION U/R.19(3) OF THE CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE, TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the order of respondent No.4-Taluk Panchayat on an application filed under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC to bring the legal heirs of one Sushilabai who was arrayed as respondent No.1 in the appeal. The said application was rejected by respondent No.4.

¶24

Heard the counsel on record and perused the

¶25

material placed on record.

¶26

The petitioner herein preferred an appeal

¶27

assailing the mutation effected by the Gram Panchayat mutating the name of respondent-Sushilabai pursuant to the registered sale deed executed by petitioner’s parents

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7314 WP No. 107973 of 2016

¶29

under registered sale deed dated 09.06.1978. Admittedly, petitioner’s parents during their lifetime have not questioned the mutation effectted in favour of Sushilabai. Though respondent No.4-Taluka Executive Officer erred in rejecting the application which was filed to bring the legal heirs of Sushilabai, this court is not inclined to grant any indulgence. If the petitioner’s parents have conveyed the property in favour of Sushilabai way back in the year 1978 under registered sale deed, the petitioner after the death of his parents, that too after lapse of 35 years cannot question the mutation, which is based on the registered sale deed. If the property was validly conveyed under registered sale deed and mutation was effected in terms of transfer of tile under the registered document, the present petitioner who has not questioned the registered sale deed executed by his parents cannot seek adjudication in a mutation proceeding. If he has any grievance against the sale deed executed by his parents, he has to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent forum in the manner known to law.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7314 WP No. 107973 of 2016

¶31

4. With these observations, the writ petition is

¶32

dismissed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

MBS Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Appanna Kareppa Kitroji v. Parasharam Bahirjee Desai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appanna Kareppa Kitroji v. Parasharam Bahirjee Desai

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

Gangappa S/O Parappa Navalur Vs Iravva W/O Gurunath Navalur

Peeru S/O Buddoji Kormaddi Vs Smt. Reshma W/O Hasan Belgaumkar

Savitri W/O Basappa Madarkhandi Vs Sangappa Basappa Madarkhandi

Smt.G. Rukminamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Ningawwa Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mruthunjaya S/O Nagappayya Achari Vs the State of Karnataka