Allowed

Ms Kayla Kathleen Kumar v. Assistant Revenue Officer (Aro)

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2024WP/17059/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a petitioner to set aside the rejection of her Sakala application for khatha transfer. The application was rejected due to pendency of an injunction suit filed by a tenant. The Court observed that the suit did not establish title in the tenant and quashed the rejection order, directing transfer of the khatha.

What did the court decide?

Jest rejection order and endorsement quashed; Respondent No.1 directed to transfer khatha in name of petitioner within two months.

Ms Kayla Kathleen Kumar Vs Assistant Revenue Officer… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33624 WP No. 17059 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 17059 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MS KAYLA KATHLEEN KUMAR D/O LATE DR S KRISHNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO. 1107, LAURENT STREET, SANTA CRUZ. CALIFORNIA USA- 95060 REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI SRINVIASA B C S/O SRI CHIKKAMARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. VANI H., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) WARD NO. 168 (PATTABHIRAMNAGER OFFICE AT JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011

¶14

REVENUE OFFICER (RO). BBMP, JAYANAGAR DIVISION OFFICE AT JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, 4^TH BLOCK. JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560011

¶15

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, BBMP, JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:33624 WP No. 17059 of 2024

¶18

OFFICE AT BBMP COMPLEX, 9^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560011.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARE PAILLE, HUDSON CIRCLE, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR NEAR UNITY BUILDING, BENGALURU-560002.

¶20

SRI. DEEPAK. A, S/O. SRI. ANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1251, 32-G CROSS, 26^TH MAIN, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 R5 SERVED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE REJECTION OF THE SAKAL APPLICATION BEARING GSC NO. BB1990000830003 AS PER THE ONLINE PRINTOUT TAKEN FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF BBMP VIDE ANNX-J AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TRANSFER KHATA FAVOURING PETITIONER BASED ON THE APPLICATION FILED VIDE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DTD. 22.01.2024 BEARING GSC NO. 881990000830003 AT ANNX-D IMMEDIATELY.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33624 WP No. 17059 of 2024

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner filed this writ petition to set aside the rejection of the Sakala application vide Annexure-J; hat the endorsement dated 01.03.2024, vide Annexure-G; and sought for mandamus directing the respondents to transfer the khatha in favour of the petitioner based on the application dated 22.01.2024, vide Annexure-D.

¶29

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶30

The father of the petitioner purchased a residential site bearing No.1251, situated at 32^nd 'G' Cross, 4^th 'T' Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru under registered sale deed dated 17.01.1992. Thereafter constructed a residential building consisting of ground and first floors. It is contended that, the father of the petitioner executed a registered Will bequeathing the petition schedule property in favour of the petitioner on

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33624 WP No. 17059 of 2024

¶32

21.08.2014. The father of the petitioner passed away on 24.10.2023. The petitioner through power of attorney holder, applied for transfer of khatha based on the registered Will dated 21.08.2014, through Sakala and the same was acknowledged by the respondent No.3. Respondent No.5 objected to transfer the khatha vide objection dated 21.02.2024, allegedly claiming to be a tenant under the concocted power of attorney and a release deed and on the alleged ground of pendency of injunction suit against the father of the petitioner in O.S.No.1240/2023. It is contended that, the order of temporary injunction relates to the eviction of respondent No.5 from the schedule property without due process of law. It is contended that the respondent No.5 has no locus standi to maintain any objection to transfer of khatha in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 issued an endorsement dated 01.03.2024, declining to transfer the khatha in the name of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner aggrieved by the order of rejection, filed this writ petition.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33624 WP No. 17059 of 2024

¶34

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned

¶35

HCGP for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was the owner of the petition schedule property under the registered sale deed. During his lifetime, he has bequeathed the petition schedule property under registered Will dated 21.08.2014. The father of the petitioner passed away on 24.10.2023. After his demise, on the basis of the registered Will, the petitioner has submitted an application for change of khatha in her name. Respondent No.5 who claims to be the tenant of the petition schedule property, has filed objections. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.5 is not claiming any right, title or interest over the petition schedule property. On the basis of the objection submitted by respondent No.5, the respondent No.1 rejected the application. Hence she submits that the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing an endorsement,

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33624 WP No. 17059 of 2024

¶38

is contrary to the records. Hence on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 submits that respondent No.5 filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioner in O.S.No.1240/2023 and the Civil Court has granted an ad-interim order of temporary injunction. There is a suit pending before the Civil Court. Hence, the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing the endorsement is just and proper. On these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶40

None appears for respondent No.5.

¶41

Perused the records and considered the

¶42

submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶43

It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner purchased the petition schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 17.01.1992, and the petitioner is the daughter of Dr. S. Krishna Kumar. On the basis of registered sale deed, the khatha was changed in the name

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33624 WP No. 17059 of 2024

¶45

of petitioner's father. During his lifetime, he had executed a registered Will bequeathing the petition schedule property in favour of the petitioner on 21.08.2014. Petitioner's father passed away on 24.10.2023, leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. On the basis of the registered Will, the petitioner applied for transfer of khatha through Sakala and the same was acknowledged by the respondent No.3. Meanwhile, the respondent No.5 filed objections for transferring khatha in the name of the petitioner on the ground that respondent No.5 is the tenant and he has filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.1240/2023 and the Civil Court has granted adinterim order of injunction restraining the defendant therein from dispossessing respondent No.5, without due process of law. The respondent No.1 considering adinterim order passed in the said suit, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, respondent No.5 is not claiming any title over the petition schedule property. The suit filed by respondent No.5 is only a suit for perpetual injunction wherein the respondent No.5 has

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33624 WP No. 17059 of 2024

¶47

sought for the relief of perpetual injunction that the respondent No.5 should not be dispossessed forcibly without following due procedure of law.

¶48

Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule property. The respondent No.1 could have rejected the application of the petitioner and could have transferred the khatha in the name of the petitioner. On the contrary, rejected the application solely on the ground that the respondent No.5 has filed a suit and the same is pending. The pendency of suit will not come in the way of respondent No.1 in transferring the khatha. As observed above, respondent No.5 is not claiming title over the petition schedule property. The endorsement issued by the respondent No.1 is contrary to the records.

¶49

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶50

pass the following:

¶51

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33624 WP No. 17059 of 2024

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The writ petition is allowed.

¶54

The rejection order dated 02.03.2024, of the Sakala application, vide Annexure-J and the endorsement dated 01.03.2024, vide Annexure-G, are quashed.

¶55

Respondent No.1 is directed to transfer khatha in the name of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶56

SD/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶57

Ms Kayla Kathleen Kumar v. Assistant Revenue Officer (Aro)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Kayla Kathleen Kumar v. Assistant Revenue Officer (Aro)

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

Smt Saritha Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Nagappa Vs the Deputy Commissisoner

Sri Appajigowda Vs Sri Doreswamy Gowda

Kenchappa Vs Sri Onkarappa

Sri. T. Suresh Kumar Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Masoom Jan Vs State of Karnataka