Dismissed

S H Akash v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2024WP/801/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to quash an endorsement by the BBMP refusing to transfer khatha in his name due to a family dispute over property ownership. The High Court found that since the ownership of the property was disputed between the petitioner and his siblings, the authorities were justified in directing the parties to resolve the matter in a Civil Court. The writ petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

S H Akash Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32721 WP No. 801 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 801 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S H AKASH S/O.LATE S R HARIHARESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A.NO.7/1, 6^TH CROSS, SUDHINDRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560053.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. H S SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP), NR SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.

¶15

THE ARO (NORTH) MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION, 16^TH CROSS, VYALIKAVAL, MALLESHWRAM, BANGALORE-560003

¶16

S H RAVINDRA S/O. LATE S.R. HARIHARESHWAR, MAJOR, R/ANO.7/1, 6TH CROSS, SUDHINDRNAGAR, BANGALORE-560053.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:32721 WP No. 801 of 2022

¶20

(BY SRI. N.R. JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. SATISH KUMAR T.C., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE R2 TO REGISTER THE KHATHA TO THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2021, vide Annexure-A, issued by respondent No.2, prayed for writ of certiorari and sought for mandamus directing respondent No.2 to register the khatha in the name of the petitioner in respect of schedule property vide Annexure-B, filed the present writ petition.

¶26

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

¶27

The property bearing No.7-1, 6^th Cross,

¶28

Sudheendranagar, Bengaluru, originally belonged to the family of one H.S.Lakshminarayana, H.S.Nagaraj and H.S.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32721 WP No. 801 of 2022

¶30

Subbarao. The three brothers have got divided the properties under a partition deed dated 25.01.1989. H.S. Lakshminarayana obtained the khatha in his name and he sold the portion fallen to his share to one K.R.Kalavathi under registered sale deed dated 14.08.1995, measuring 18 x 30 feet which is the petition schedule property. The mother of the petitioner who was employed and was earning salary, purchased the petition schedule property from its previous owner under the registered sale deed dated 03.09.1997, for valuable consideration. The mother of the petitioner by name Manjulakshi was in peaceful possession of the schedule property till her death, she died in the year 2018. The petitioner being her son was residing in the petition schedule property along with his mother till her death. Thereafter he continued in possession over the petition schedule property. The respondent - authorities after having considered the possession of petitioner's mother, incorporated her name in the khatha register in respect of schedule property. After the death of his mother, he has submitted a

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:32721 WP No. 801 of 2022

¶33

representation for change of khatha in his name. The respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 06.04.2021, stating that there is a dispute between the family members and directed to get their dispute settled in the Civil Court. The petitioner aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 06.04.2021, filed this writ petition.

¶34

Respondent No.3 filed the statement of objections

¶35

contending that respondent No.3 is none other than the elder brother of the petitioner. It is contended that the father of respondent No.3 Sri.S.R.Harihareshwar married to Smt.Rohinidevi on 10.12.1967, at Sagara in Shivamogga District and out of their wedlock, one daughter by name S.H.Rekha and a son i.e., respondent No.3 were born. Both Rohinidevi and her husband were transferred to Bangalore and they shifted residence to Bangalore. It is contended that, sister of Rohinidevi, i.e., Manjulakshi was liking her husband, and at the consent and willingness of her husband Harihareshwar, she arranged a second marriage to her husband with her sister

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32721 WP No. 801 of 2022

¶37

Manjulakshi in the month of May 1987. Manjulakshi is the second wife. All the family members were residing in the schedule property. It is contended that father of respondent No.3 passed away on 16.01.2010, and his mother Smt.Rohinidevi passed away on 05.06.2015, and mother of the petitioner passed away on 05.12.2018. It is contended that the property in question was purchased in the name of Smt. Manjulakshi and petitioner is attempting to get transferred the said property records in BBMP to his name alone by producing false family tree of his mother, to forego the legitimate rights of respondent No.3 and his sister Rekha. It is contended that the said property was purchased in the name of Manjulakshi at the major contribution of her husband and first wife. Respondent No.3 objected for transfer of khatha in the name of the petitioner alone as the respondent No.3, his sister and petitioner have jointly succeeded to the said property. The respondent No.3 produced documents along with the statement of objections and contended that respondent No.2 has rightly passed an order directing the petitioner to

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:32721 WP No. 801 of 2022

¶40

agitate his grievance before the Civil Court. Hence prayed

¶41

to dismiss the petition.

¶42

Respondents No.1 and 2 filed statement of

¶43

objections supporting the impugned endorsement and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question was purchased by his mother and after her death, the said property devolves upon the petitioner and the petitioner submitted an application to transfer khatha in his name, but the respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. He submits that the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is incorrect. The respondent No.2 ought to have transferred the khatha in the name of the petitioner. On the contrary, refused to

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:32721 WP No. 801 of 2022

¶48

transfer the khatha in the name of the petitioner. Hence,

¶49

on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶50

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner is none other than the younger brother of respondent No.3. He submits that the father and his mother by name Rohinidevi have contributed for purchasing the property in question and the same was purchased in the name of Manjulakshi. The respondent No.3 and his sister have got right in the property in question. The petitioner alone has no right over the property in question. As there is a dispute in between the family members in regard to the property in question, only the Civil Court can decide the rights of the parties and not the respondent No.2. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶51

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32721 WP No. 801 of 2022

¶53

It is not in dispute that the property in question was purchased in the name of Manjulakshi under registered sale deed dated 03.09.1997. Admittedly, Manjulakshi was the second wife of Harihareshwar, i.e., father of petitioner and respondent No.3. After the death of Manjulakshi, the petitioner submitted an application for transfer of khatha in his name. The respondent No.3 submitted objection for change of khatha in the name of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No.3 and his sister have also got right in the property in question. The petitioner has not disputed that respondent No.3 and Smt. Rekha are his siblings. The respondent No.3 is also claiming to be the legal heir of Manjulakshi. The respondent No.3 contended that the said property was purchased by his father and mother in the name of mother of the petitioner and thus have contributed for purchasing the same. The said property is the joint family property of the petitioner, respondent No.3 and Smt. Rekha. There is dispute as to whether the property was purchased by the mother of the petitioner or Harihareshwar and Rohinidevi,

¶54

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:32721 WP No. 801 of 2022

¶55

as the petitioner is claiming ownership of the property in question and the same is denied by respondent No.3. As there is a dispute in regard to the rights of the parties, respondent No.2 has rightly passed an order directing the parties to approach the Civil Court and get a decree. I do not find any error in the impugned endorsement. The petitioner has not made out any grounds to set aside Annexure-A. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶58

S H Akash v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S H Akash v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Ravi Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Sanjay Reddy Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Babulal L Vs the Chief Commissioner Bbmp

Arvind R Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Kempakka Vs Gangaiah

Mr. Bruno D Costa Vs the Parish Priest