Petitioner challenged revenue orders upholding mutation based on a 1991 registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.5, claiming title through a 1940 partition and relinquishment within the family. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding rights must be crystallized in the pending regular first appeal.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:21805 WP No. 3409 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 3409 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. ASWATHNARAYANA S/O LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9, "MATHRU NILAYA", 2ND CROSS, SADARAHALLI, BYANNA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, BANGALORE -560 024
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AMARESH A. ANGADI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SRI. B.K. GOPALA SHETTY, S/O B.R. KRISHNAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.16, 1ST FLOOR, CENTRAL STREET, 5TH BLOCK, K.P.WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE R2DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN RP NO.9/2020 DATED 08.12.2021 (VIDE ANNEXURE-J) AND IN CONSEQUENCES TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R3-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE DATED 12.12.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 08.12.2021 (Annexure-'J') in R.P.No.9/2020 passed by the respondent No.2 and order dated 12.12.2019 (Annexure -'H') in R.A.(BNA) 07/2018 c/w RA(BNA) 189/2018 passed by the respondent No.3.
by the petitioner that, on the very same day on 04.06.1940, partition took place between the grand father
of the petitioner and his great grand father as per Annexure-'B' to the writ petition and the land in question has been allotted in favour of the grand father of the petitioner. It is further pleaded that, on his demise, the land has been given to the father of the petitioner-late Marappa and as such, it is contended in the writ petition that, the Revenue Authorities have misconstrued with regard to the name of Sri Marappa s/o Sonnappa and Marappa s/o Byanna and therefore, the writ petition is filed stating that the respondent-authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere with regard to Mutation effected by the competent authority pursuant to the partition effected between and amongst the joint family of late Sonnappa and his children and his successors.
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. B.P.Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri T.M.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the respondent-authorities have passed an erroneous order based on the Sale Deed said to have been executed by one Marappa s/o Sonnappa (Annexure-'C'), in favour of respondent No.5 and based on the said sale deed, the mutation entry was effected in M.R.No.6/1991-92 and therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, as the said Marappa himself had relinquished the right in favour of his father and grand father of the petitioner herein, late Marappa has no authority under law to sell the suit schedule property mentioned in the sale deed at Annexure 'C' to the writ petition.
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
revenue authorities have no jurisdiction in so far as interfering with the civil matters.
counsel appearing for respondent No.5, refers to the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2014 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (C.C.H.No.7), in O.S.No.6150/1995 and contended that, the petitioners herein have filed suit seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the subject matter of the land and the said suit is dismissed on 12.08.2014 and thereafter, the petitioners herein have preferred RFA No.1665/2014 and the same is pending consideration before this Court and also the rights of the parties is yet to be crystallized by this Court in the aforementioned appeal and therefore, he contended that, no interference is called for insofar as the impugned orders is concerned.
NC: 2024:KHC:21805 WP No. 3409 of 2022
sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities.
Late Sonnappa () __________________________________________________ () () Late Byanna Late Marappa () _____________________________ () () Late Marappa Late Krishnappa () Ashwathnarayana (Petr)
Sonnappa (great grand father of the petitioner) had two children Byanna and Marappa. Byanna had two children,
Marappa and Krishnappa. Petitioner is the son of Marappa. In this regard, taking into consideration, the registered document produced at Annexure-'A' and 'B' dated 04.06.1940 where, it is evident that, there is a partition in respect of the family of Sonnappa and his children as per Annexure-'B' and relinquishment deed has been executed by the 2nd son of late Sonnappa in favour of his father and his brother. It is also to be noted that, Marappa had executed a registered Sale Deed dated 05.07.1991 (Annexure-'C') in favour of 5th respondent herein and based on the registered Sale Deed, the respondentauthorities have modified the Mutation in MR No.6/199192. In that view of the matter, as the mutation entry has been effected pursuant to the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 05.07.1991 and as the rights of the parties is yet to be crystallized in RFA No.1665/2011, I am of the view that, there is no merit in the writ petition and the parties have to await the judgment and decree that may be made in RFA 1665/2011. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed .
NC: 2024:KHC:21805 WP No. 3409 of 2022
It is open for the petitioner herein to approach the revenue authorities consequent upon the decision of this
Court in RFA No.1665/2014.
SD/JUDGE
PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revenue authorities could sustain mutation entries based on a registered sale deed when the petitioner claims title through a family partition and relinquishment deed
Whether the writ petition should be decided while the parties' civil suit appeal (RFA No.1665/2014) is pending
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. M. Aswathnarayana
The State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Department of Revenue
The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District
The Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub Division
The Tahasildar, Bangalore North (Additional Taluk)
Sri. B.G. Lakshmikanthraj Setty
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
