Sri C N Narasimhaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri C N Narasimhaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the writ appeal is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of as not surviving.

Issue for consideration

Whether the grant of 2 acres 37 guntas in Survey No.353 was made in favour of the joint family rather than respondent No.3 alone. +2 more

Court's answer

The appellant having failed to establish that the grant was made in favour of the joint family and not respondent No.3 alone, the Division Bench finds no good reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

The appellant failed to establish that respondent No.3 was not a tenant and that the land could not have been granted in her favour, or that the land was purchased by his late father; accordingly the challenge to the grant fails.

Key takeaways

Enquiry into the disputed questions of fact concerning the appellant's alleged purchase is not possible in writ proceedings; the appellant must establish his case before the necessary civil Court (conclusion of the learned Single Judge endorsed on appeal).ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (LR) dismissed by Division Bench (N.V. Anjaria, CJ and M.I. Arun, J.). The Court declined to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order refusing to disturb the grant of 2 acres 37 guntas in Survey No.353 of Kodiyalakarenahalli village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara, made in favour of respondent No.3 on her Form No.7A application under Section 77(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, as upheld by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ((Revenue) Appeal No.658/2007, judgment dated 31.05.2018). The appellant contended that his late father had purchased the extent under sale deeds dated 10.05.1963 and 17.09.1964 which did not mention any survey number, and that the grant ought to have been treated as made to the joint family; the Court held these to be disputed questions of fact not examinable in writ proceedings, requiring the appellant to seek appropriate declaration and adjudication before the competent civil Court.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14821-DB WA No. 1443 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1443 OF 2024 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. C.N.NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE SRI.C.NARAYANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O CHANNAMMANAHALLI HAMLET OF KODIYALAKARENAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. K.ABHINAV ANAND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA-562 019.

SMT. K.JAYAMMA W/O LATE SRI.THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O CHANNAMMANAHALLI HAMLET OF KODIYALAKARENAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14821-DB WA No. 1443 of 2024

DISTRICT-562 109.

SRI. KARIYAPPA S/O SRI. KENCHATHIMMAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

SMT. CHITRA SHEKARAMMA W/O LATE SRI. KARIYAPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

SRI. RAJANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

SMT. PADMAMMA W/O LATE SRI. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE SRI. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

SRI. KEERTHI KUMAR S/O LATE SRI. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

SRI. NARAYAN S/O LATE SRI. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

SRI. MURTHY S/O LATE SRI. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NOs.4 TO 9 ARE R OF KODIYALAKARENAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109.

SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14821-DB WA No. 1443 of 2024

SRI. KENCHAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

RESPONDENT NOs.10 AND 11 ARE R/OF CHANNAMMANAHALLI HAMLET OF KODIYALAKARENAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S.HARISH, G.A. FOR R1 & R2; SMT. SRUTI C. CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 07/08/2024 IN WP NO.33925/2018 (LR) IMPUGNED IN THIS WRIT APPEAL AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 31/05/2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN (REVENUE) APPEAL NO.658/2007 AND THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2006 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.L.R.F.7(A) 472 350 467 466 477:99-2000.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14821-DB WA No. 1443 of 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

Aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.33925 of 2018, the petitioner therein has preferred this writ appeal.

The Land Tribunal has granted 2 acres 37 guntas of land in Survey No.353 of Kodiyalakarenahalli village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluka , in favour of respondent No.3. On the ground that the said land was purchased by father of the appellant and that respondent No.3 is the wife of appellant’s brother and that she was not a tenant on the land and could not have granted in her favour and that the appellant also inherited the land along with the husband of respondent No.3 and that the appellant was not made party to the proceedings before Land Tribunal, the appellant has challenged the grant before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as 'KAT').

The Appellate Tribunal on the following grounds, dismissed the appeal,

"13. The dispute between Appellant and R-3 is about whether appellant and R-3 are members of a joint family

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14821-DB WA No. 1443 of 2024

and whether occupancy right over disputed land was granted in favor of joint family consisting of appellant and R- 3. Appellant who is claiming joint tenancy rights/occupancy rights/share in the disputed land to get relief by approaching the competent forum. Hence we come to the conclusion that the Appellant failed to prove the grounds urged in the appeal memo and the impugned order passed by the R-2 is on the basis of the application/Form No.7A filed by R-3 is in accordance with law and there are no valid reasons to interfere in that order. At this stage it is clarified that any observation made in this order is concerned to this appeal only. Hence we answer Point No.2 in the negative ........."

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.33925 of 2018. Learned Single Judge on the following grounds

dismissed the writ petition,

"4. On meticulous examination of the records, this Court would find that Sy.No.353 measures 6 acres 30 guntas. Petitioner is asserting title to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.353 based on two sale deeds dated 10.05.1963 and 17.09.1964. While respondent No.3 is asserting tenancy rights to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas and the tenancy is claimed against one Kariyappa. Form No.7A filed by respondent No.3 and other respondents is entertained by the Assistant Commissioner and grant is made under Section 77(A) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.3, though petitioner

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14821-DB WA No. 1443 of 2024

is asserting absolute ownership to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.353, the sale deeds do not reflect survey number. Learned counsel for petitioner has tried to persuade this Court to point out that what was purchased in 1963 and 64 pertains to Sy.No.353. Reliance is placed on boundaries indicated in the sale deeds.

On examining the grounds urged in the writ petition, this Court is of the view that these complex disputed questions of fact cannot be examined in 77(A) proceedings. Whether petitioner has purchased a portion of Sy.No.353 under two sale deeds involves complex issues and the same needs a thorough adjudication at the hands of the competent civil Court. All these disputed questions of fact cannot be examined in a summary proceedings more particularly, under Section 77(A) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

This Court has also taken cognizance of the fact that Sy.No.353 measures 6 acres 13 guntas, while petitioner claims that his father has purchased 2 acres 37 guntas under two separate sale deeds. Unless the petitioner is able to establish that the sale deeds secured by the petitioner's father in fact pertain to Sy.No.353, no indulgence can be granted by the writ Court under Section 227 proceedings. Petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate declaration and seek adjudication of his rights by instituting a suit before a competent civil Court."

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14821-DB WA No. 1443 of 2024

Perusal of the averments and the documents produced reveal that the appellant, before KAT has advanced the arguments that land has been granted in favour of joint family and not in favour of respondent No.3 alone and the same has to be treated accordingly. The KAT after verifying the documents has come to the conclusion that based on the claims made by the concerned person, land has been granted in favour of respondent No.3 and it is for the appellant to approach appropriate forum (civil Court) to establish that it was granted in favour of joint family and not in faovur of respondent No.3 alone.

Before learned Single Judge, the appellant has harped upon two sale deeds and contended that boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds prove that the land in question was in fact purchased by his late father and respondent No.3 was not a tenant at all and it was never fit for grant and after the demise of his father and that the appellant has inherited the same.

Learned Single Judge upon perusal of the alleged sale deeds has come to the conclusion that the sale deeds do not mention survey numbers and it cannot conclude that the land in fact was purchased by late father of the appellant and that the

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14821-DB WA No. 1443 of 2024

appellant has to establish that fact by approaching necessary Civil Court and such enquiry is not possible under the writ proceedings as it involves disputed question of facts.

Having failed to establish either that the grant was made in favour of joint family or that respondent No.3 was not a tenant and land could not have been granted in her favour and that land concerned was indeed purchased by late father of the appellant, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of learned Single Judge.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, any interlocutory application that may be pending, would not survive and stands accordingly disposed of.

SD/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

PGG

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17