K R Subramani Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/09/2022 IN WP NO.17395/2022 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶28

CAV JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

¶30

This intra court appeal filed under Section 4 of

¶31

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order passed by the learned single judge dated 20.09.2022 in W.P.No.17395/ 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR).

¶32

3 -

¶33

WA No. 1063 of 2022

¶34

It is the contention of the appellant that

¶35

survey No.240 of Kadenahalli Village, Byrakur Hobli, Mulabagilu Taluk of Kolar District was totally measuring 5 acres 36 guntas. Out of that, the disputed property is 2 acre 35 guntas, which is standing in the name of respondent No.5 herein. Since there is no dispute in respect of remaining extent of 2 acre 35 guntas of the said property, which was succeeded by the appellant from his ancestors and others, it is not necessary to consider the said property in detail in the present writ appeal.

¶36

According to the contention of the appellant, one Venkatamuniyappa was the owner of Survey No.240/1 to an extent of 2 acres 35 guntas. Earlier it was part of survey No.240 and subsequently after phoding (sub-division) it was given survey No.240/1. The said Venkatamuniyappa was father of the respondent No.5. The said Venkatamuniyappa had two wives, by name Munivenkatamma and Chengamma. According to contention of the appellant, both Munivenkatamma and Chengamma together executed a registered sale deed dated 27.05.1953 in favour of one Smt.Venkatamma, wife of Chowdappa that is great grandmother of appellant.

¶37

4 -

¶38

WA No. 1063 of 2022

¶39

Thereafter, the family of the appellant became absolute owner of total extent of 5 acres 30 guntas in survey No.240.

¶40

It was further contended by the appellant that respondent No.5 had no right over the said property, however, the respondent got his name entered in the revenue records. The appellant herein challenged the said mutation entry before the learned Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division in a case RA.No.671/2016-17. After contest, the said appeal was allowed and the order of the revenue entry standing in the name of respondent No.5, set aside and concerned was directed to enter the name of appellant in the revenue records of the disputed property survey No.240/1 measuring 2 acres 35 guntas. That order was challenged by the respondent No.5 herein before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District in Case No. R.A.P.No.72/2019. The learned Deputy Commissioner after hearing, vide order dated 27.04.2022 set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.11.2019, that is produced in Annexure-K. That order was challenged before the learned single judge in WP No.

¶41

5 -

¶42

WA No. 1063 of 2022

¶43

17395/2022 (KLR-RR/SUR). The learned single judge after

¶44

hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition by impugned order dated 20.09.2022. That is under challenge in the present appeal.

¶45

We have heard the arguments of the learned

¶46

Advocates appearing for appellant as well as respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

¶47

The learned counsel for appellant argued in line with the contention raised in the appeal memo. He further contended that Smt.Munnivenkatamma and Smt.Chengamma had executed registered sale deed dated 27.05.1953 in favour of great grand mother of appellant by name Venkatamma. Appellant has succeeded the said property and actual and physical possession of the same. The Deputy Commissioner did not consider the said materials placed on record and erroneously allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.5. The learned single Judge did not consider these materials and erred in not setting aside this order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. He further contends that the learned Assistant Commissioner has rightly held that appellant has

¶48

6 -

¶49

WA No. 1063 of 2022

¶50

been owner of the said property by virtue of the said sale

¶51

deed. Therefore, findings of the learned Deputy Commissioner as well as learned single Judge are erroneous and prayed to allow the appeal.

¶52

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶53

as well as advocate appearing for respondent No.5 supported the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the learned single Judge. They further contended that there are no reasons to interfere in the said findings of the learned single Judge and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶54

The disputed property to an extent of 2.35 acres was earlier undisputedly was standing in the name of Venkatamuniyappa. It is not in dispute that the said property was sub-divided and re-numbered as survey No.240/1 measuring 2 acres 35 guntas. There is no dispute that the said Venkatamuniyappa had two wives by name Smt.Munivenkatamma and Smt. Chengamma. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.5 is the son of Venkatamuniyappa.

¶55

7 -

¶56

WA No. 1063 of 2022

¶57

The contention of the appellant is that his

¶58

family became the owner of the said disputed property by virtue of a registered sale deed executed by Smt.Munivenkatamma and Chengamma dated 27.05.1953. As observed by the learned single Judge, the said sale deed did not see the light of the day till the revenue records were challenged. Undisputedly, after execution of the alleged sale deed dated 27.05.1953, no revenue records were mutated in the name of purchaser or his successors of the property giving effect to the said sale deed in the revenue records. For the first time, revenue records were challenged during the year 2017 i.e, nearly after 64 years. No reasons were assigned for the said delay and laches in mutating the revenue records.

¶59

In addition to that, a suit for partition was filed by the members of the appellant's family in O.S.No.207/2009 on the file of Civil Judge, Mulabagilu. Undisputedly, the parties to the said suit claimed partition of the property in survey No.240 to an extent of 5 acres 30 guntas. The said Court, after contest of the matter, held that the family of Chowdappa had right only to an extent of 2 acres 35 guntas and not 5 acres 36 guntas in

¶60

8 -

¶61

WA No. 1063 of 2022

¶62

survey No.240 and it was also held that the parties to the said suit are entitled to partition of the said property only to an extent of 2 acres 35 guntas. An appeal was filed against the same in R.A.No.62/2014 and the said appeal was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.207/2009 and it attained finality.

¶63

The appellant has produced xerox copy of the said sale deed dated 27.05.1953. The said sale deed has been seriously disputed by respondent No. 5. RTC and revenue records of said land undisputedly stands in the name of respondent No.5. As already noted above, for about 64 years after the execution of the alleged sale deed dated 27.05.1953, no action was taken by the purchaser of the property bearing survey No.240/1 to mutate her name in the revenue records. Thereafter also, the daughters and grand daughters of deceased Venkatamma, who succeeded to the property did not try to enter their names in the revenue records. Title of the

¶64

appellant to the disputed property is under serious challenge, such a seriously disputed question of facts cannot be decided in the revenue or writ proceedings. Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the serious

¶65

9 -

¶66

WA No. 1063 of 2022

¶67

disputed question of facts relating to title. It is settled proposition of law that revenue courts have no jurisdiction to decide the civil rights of the parties over an immovable property.

¶68

The full Bench of this Court in the case of Jayamma and others vs. State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue and others¹ , held that "the revenue officials in the rank of Assistant Commissioner/appellate Authority and Deputy Commissioner/Regional Authority under the provisions of Section 136 (2) and (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, cannot decide the dispute between the inter se parties involving adjudication relating to title and possession, but they are authorized only to decide the entries based on the source of title."

¶69

96. The proceedings initiated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and proceedings initiated under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are different and distinct. In view of the provisions of Article 246(3) read with Entry 45 List II, Schedule VII and the Enactment of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which clearly indicate that the Revenue Authorities/Courts can only take necessary steps for assessment and recovery of land revenue and land revenue administration, maintenance of land Records, survey for revenue purpose, record of rights alone, there is no necessity for the parties first to exhaust their remedies under Chapter

¶70

1 reported in ILR 2020 Kar 1449

¶71

10 -

¶72

WA No. 1063 of 2022

¶73

XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In view of provisions of Section 135 and proviso under Section 62(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and thereafter, start denovo proceedings as contemplated under the proviso to Section 135 of the Act thereto. It is clear from the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act under that Chapter XI, begins with heading Record of Rights and has nothing to do with the interse civil dispute between the parties. This Court and Hon'ble Apex Court time and again has held that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title between the parties in respect of immoveable property.

¶74

97. In view of the proviso of Sections 135 and 62 (b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, a party can approach the Civil Court by filing a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title for the relief of declaration of his right, to establish his private right and any declaration made by the competent Civil Court will be binding on the private parties as well as authorities concerned, who pass the orders under Section 136(2) and (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is well settled that any adverse finding recorded either by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner with regard to record of rights in respect of private parties or any entries exercising their power under the provisions of Section 136, Chapter XI of the Land Revenue Act, it shall not be binding on the Civil Court as well as any decision made by the authorities under the Land Revenue Act only with regard to land revenue, assessment and collection of revenue, maintenance of records, survey for revenue purpose and record of rights only. The authorities under the Land Revenue Act have no jurisdiction to decide the title between the parties and parties who are entitled can file a suit invoking the provisions of Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure subject to cause of action as and when arises. Therefore, question No.3 under reference raised would not enlarge the period of limitation under the Central Enactment.

¶75

98. It is well settled that the revenue entries are not documents of title as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASIF HAMEED AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS and also in the case of GURUNATH MANOHAR PAVASKAR & OTHERS vs. NAGESH SIDDAPPA NAVALGUND, wherein para 11 and 12 read as under.

¶76

"11. Furthermore, the High Court committed an error in also throwing the burden of proof upon the appellant-defendants without taking into consideration the provisions of Section 101 of the

¶77

11 -

¶78

WA No. 1063 of 2022

¶79

Evidence Act. In Narain Prasad Aggarwal v. State of M.P. [(2007) 11 SCC 736: (2007) 8 Scale 250] this Court opined: (SCC p. 746, para 19)

¶80

"19. Record-of-right is not a document of title. Entries made therein in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act although are admissible as a relevant piece of evidence and although the same may also carry a presumption of correctness, but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that such presumption is rebuttable."

¶81

12. A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act. The courts below, were, therefore, required to appreciate the evidence keeping in view the correct legal principles in mind."

¶82

Therefore, question No.4 raised under reference has to be answered in the negative holding that there is no need for the aggrieved party to exhaust remedies under Chapter XI of the Act and start den ova civil proceedings as contemplated under provision to Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶83

In view of the law laid down in the above said

¶84

judgment, the Revenue Courts or this Court under the writ proceedings cannot decide civil rights in a summary trial. The parties have to approach the Civil Court to declare their civil right over the immovable property. This has been observed by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment. The appellant instead of approaching the Civil Court to get his right and title decided over the immovable disputed property, wrongly approached this Court in a writ proceedings as well as intra court appeal.

¶85

12 -

¶86

WA No. 1063 of 2022

¶87

We do not find any error or perversity in the

¶88

impugned order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner as well as the learned single Judge of this court. The appeal is a devoid of merits.

¶89

The learned advocate for appellant submits that liberty may be given to the appellant to approach the Civil Court to declare his right over the disputed property. There is no need for granting any such liberty by this Court. If the appellant so advised, the appellant may approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law.

¶90

For the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is devoid of merits and hence it is dismissed .

¶91

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶92

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶93

AG

K R Subramani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

K R Subramani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Ramaprasad Vs Smt. Nagarathna S

Sri Gopal Vs Sri Srinivasa Murthy

S C Manjunath Vs Smt Anitha

The Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society Vs Dattappa,S/O Ningappa

Sri. v Ramanujam Aged About 72 Years Vs the Authorised Officer

Smt.Roopa K Vs Aadhar Housing Finance Limited