Disposed

Shri Dundappa Laxman Gudami v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2024WP/60563/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged orders setting aside revenue mutation of land purchased under a sale deed based on a compromise decree that was later set aside on appeal. The civil suit was decreed afresh allotting shares to the parties; the High Court disposed of the writ petition leaving rights to be settled in final decree proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty reserved to adjudicate rights in final decree proceedings, entries subject to its outcome.

Shri Dundappa Laxman Gudami Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:401 WP No. 60563 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 60563 OF 2010 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI DUNDAPPA LAXMAN GUDAMI AGE 55 YEARSM OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O KAMATENATI-591226, TALUKA:CHIKODIDIST:BELAGAVI

¶8

NAGAPPA LAXMAN GUDAMI AGE 63 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O. KAMATENATTI-591226TALUKA:CHIKODI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶9

2A. SANGAPPA NAGAPPA GUDAMI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: KAMATENATTI, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591226

¶10

2B. SHRI. GOPAL S/O NAGAPPA GUDAMI AGE:44 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KAMATENATTI, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591226.

¶11

Digitally signed by JAGADISHT R JAGADISHT RDate: 2024.01.24 11:56:25 +0530

¶12

2C. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O SHIVARAI MALI AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O BELAKUD, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 222

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. AKSHAY A KATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC-D:401 WP No. 60563 of 2010

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI COURT COMPOUND BELAGAVI -590 001

¶19

THE ASSISTNT COMMISSIONER CHIKODI-591201DIST: BELAGAVI

¶20

SMT. SHARAWA W/O GURUSIDDA DALAWAI @ GHALI AGE MAJOR, OC:HOUSEHOLD R/O BAVACHI, 591 317TQ:RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI

¶21

SHRI GURUSIDDA BHIMA DALAWAI @ GHALI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O KAMATENATTI-591 226 TQ:CHIKOD DIST: BELAGAVI

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.V.S.KALSURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. D.C.LADKHAN FOR R3; R4 SERVED)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶25

I) QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 7/1/2010 PASSED BY RES.NO.1-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAUM IN RB:RTA:154/2007-08 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E CONFIRMING THE ORDER DTD.24/1/2007 IN RTS:AP:119/2006-07 PASSED BY RES.NO.2-THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKODI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC-D:401 WP No. 60563 of 2010

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Respondent No.4 was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.38/10 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas situated at Kamatenatti Village. Respondent No.3 filed a suit in O.S.No.30/1998 before the Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chikkodi, for partition and separate possession on behalf of the minor children. The said suit was compromised, and in terms of the compromise decree, the subject land was allotted to the share of the minor children of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The compromise decree is dated 03.04.2003.

¶31

Such being the case, respondent No.4 conveyed the subject land in favour of the petitioners by executing the registered sale deed dated 30.03.2005 and in pursuance of the same, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue record as absolute owners in possession of subject land. Respondent No.3 filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, challenging the mutation of the names in favour of the petitioners. Respondent No.2 by the impugned order set aside the mutation entry and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner concerned in the revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Hence, this petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compromise decree have been set aside by the First Appellate Court in RA No.13/2009 and the matter remitted back to the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC-D:401 WP No. 60563 of 2010

¶35

Trial Court for reconsidering the suit filed by respondent No.3 on behalf of the minor children afresh in accordance with law, the impugned order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not sustainable in law.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that in pursuance of the order of the remand, the Trial Court has decreed the suit allotting 1/11^th share in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 and defendant Nos.7 and 8 would get 1/11^th share of defendant No.1 which can be worked out in the final decree proceedings.

¶37

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

The Trial Court in O.S. No.30/1998 has partly decreed the suit and in terms of the decree, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are entitled for 1/11^th share each in the suit schedule properties and the petitioners who were defendant Nos.7 and 8 were entitled for 1/11^th share of defendant No.1. The dispute between the parties having been adjudicated by the jurisdictional Civil Court, the petition stands disposed off reserving liberty to adjudicate their rights in the final decree proceedings and the impugned entries are subject to the final out come of final decree to be drawn by the FDP Court.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

SSP. CT: ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48

Shri Dundappa Laxman Gudami v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Dundappa Laxman Gudami v. the Deputy 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

Smt. Sarojini W/O Balappa Patil, Vs United Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Kolli Mallikarjun S/O Kolli Nageshwar Rao, Vs the State of Karnataka

Kolli Mallikarjun S/O Kolli Nageshwar Rao, Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Raj Fabricators and Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Smt. Yallawwa W/O. Bharmappa Madar Vs Shri. Chandrappa Kalsappa Holer

Lalita W/O Halappa Katagi Vs Sub Registrar Mundgod