Allowed

Dr. R. Yatish Ramalingaiah v. the Bbmp Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2024WP/1580/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought directions to the revenue authorities to endorse Katha in the petitioner's name based on a Gift Deed. Balancing the right to enjoy property rights with a pending partition suit, the Court directed the issuance of Katha subject to the outcome of the civil suit, enabling tax payment without prejudice to other family members' rights.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the Second Respondent to update revenue entries (Katha) in the petitioner's name subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit O.S. No.4900/2020.

Dr. R. Yatish Ramalingaiah Vs the Bbmp Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50239 WP No. 1580 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1580 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

DR. R. YATISH RAMALINGAIAH S/O. LATE RAMALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2092, 5^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 040.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SADANAND G SHASTRI.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE BBMP COMMISSIONER N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 002.

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER VIJAYANAGAR SUB DIVISION, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. KESHAV M DATAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER ANNEXURES-A AND B AND FURTHER ISSUE KHATHA IN NAME OF THE PETITIONER OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY; DIRECT THE R2 TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENTS DATED

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:50239 WP No. 1580 of 2024

¶18

24.08.2023 AND 04.10.2023 AT ANNEXURE-C AND D RESPECTIVELY.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The question for consideration in this petition is: whether the petitioner is entitled for the revenue entries [Katha] for the property in No.2092, 9^th Cross, 5^th Main Road, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru [ the subject property ]. The petitioner presents this question for consideration challenging the second respondent’s Endorsements dated 23.08.2023 and 04.10.2023 [Annexures-C and D]. The second respondent has issued these impugned Endorsements informing the petitioner that his request for change in the revenue entries [ the Katha ] for the subject property cannot be considered because Sri Babu Ramalingaiah [one of the petitioner's siblings] has filed objections against transfer of Katha referring to a pending suit in O.S. No.4900/2020.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:50239 WP No. 1580 of 2024

¶25

Sri Sadanand G Shastri, the learned

¶26

counsel for the petitioner, submits that it will remain indisputable that the petitioner's father, Sri Ramalingaiah, was the absolute owner of the subject property and the revenue entries [ Katha ] for this property stood in his name. The learned counsel asserts that Sri Ramalingaiah has executed a Gift Deed dated 11.12.2018 transferring the Subject Property in favour of the petitioner and this Gift Deed is registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar in Document No.VJN-1-0602/2018-19.

¶27

Sri Sadanand G Shastri is categorical that Sri Ramalingaiah is also survived by the petitioner's mother and the petitioner’s two siblings, that the petitioner’s brother has filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.4900/2020 including the subject property and that the trial Court has restrained the petitioner from creating third party rights with the appellate Court confirming this order. The learned counsel

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:50239 WP No. 1580 of 2024

¶30

canvasses that the temporary injunction not to alienate the subject property based on the Gift Deed cannot be construed as a contra condition for transferring the revenue entries for the subject property on the basis of such Deed while admitting that the petitioner cannot dispute that all claims will ultimately be subject to the outcome in the suit in O.S. No.4900/2020.

¶31

Sri Keshav M Datar, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents, is heard in the light of the above. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner, though has referred to the Gift Deed dated 11.12.2018 in the application, has not furnished a copy thereof and that he has failed to even mention the pendency of the suit, and as such, the second respondent is justified in refusing the benefit of the revenue entries. The learned counsel also proposes to contend that this Court may consider restoring the matter for reconsideration in

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:50239 WP No. 1580 of 2024

¶34

the light of the Gift Deed after hearing any objection that could be filed by other family members.

¶35

These submissions are considered. There

¶36

is considerable force in the canvass that even an order of temporary injunction against creating third party rights based on the Gift Deed dated 11.12.2018 cannot be a contra condition unless the trial Court has interdicted even transfer of the revenue entries based on such Gift Deed. Further, this Court must observe that the revenue entries based on the Gift Deed will not create any equity or advantage to the petitioner in the suit in O.S. No.4900/2020 and the revenue entries will be subject to the outcome of the suit, and therefore, it cannot prejudice the rights of the family members. Crucially, the mutation of revenue entries for the subject property will enable onus to pay property taxes without default. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:50239 WP No. 1580 of 2024

¶39

ORDER

¶40

[a] The petition stands disposed of directing the second respondent, upon receipt of a certified copy of this order, to give the benefit of revenue entries [ Katha ] for the Subject Property to the petitioner with necessary endorsement that it will be subject to the outcome of the suit in O.S. No.4900/2020.

¶41

[b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the second respondent shall duly comply with the direction as aforesaid within the next eight [8] weeks.

¶42

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶43

AN/-

Dr. R. Yatish Ramalingaiah v. the Bbmp Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. R. Yatish Ramalingaiah v. the Bbmp Commissioner

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

M/S G M Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Vyvasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamita Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Rasheed Vs the Commissioner

Sri K Swarup Kumar Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shantha Bai Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Lupin Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike