Smt. K.S. Ramani Iyengar v. the Executive Officer

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2025WA/980/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: khata / revenue record joint entry; V.P. Assessment No.2, Anandapuram Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga; KSFC public auction purchase, sale deed 11.01.2013; registered gift deed 01.09.2015; W.P.No.57554/2018 (LB-RES); order dated 30.11.2017 of Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Sagara; O.S.No.152/2016 perpetual injunction; R.A.No.17/2021 reversal; RSA No.1838/2024 with interim order dated 30.12.2024; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act, 1961; writ appeal disposed, no costs; neutral citation NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed of with the direction that both the names of the appellant and respondent No.3 continue in the revenue records maintained by respondent No.2 until their title and possession are adjudicated and decided on merits; no order as to costs. ¶¶52

Smt. K.S. Ramani Iyengar Vs the Executive Officer — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶52

Issue for consideration

What is the extent of ownership and respective possession of the appellant (claiming under sale deed dated 11.01.2013) and respondent No.3 (claiming under gift deed dated 01.09.2015) in respect of V.P. Assessment No.2, Anandapuram Village, and how are their names to be entered in the revenue records pending adjudication? +1 more

¶¶48

Court's answer

The appellant and respondent No.3 are required to establish their title and possession over the lands they claim based on the sale deed and gift deed respectively, either in the pending regular second appeal or in the appropriate proceedings.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

Till such right is adjudicated and decided on merits, it is appropriate that both the names of the appellant and respondent No.3 continue in the revenue records maintained by respondent No.2 in respect of the land in question.

¶¶51

Key takeaways

There is no error or infirmity in the finding of the learned Single Judge directing the authorities to continue the names of both the parties in the revenue records.ratio¶¶52
The observations made by the learned Single Judge and this Court are only to decide the present lis.ratio¶¶52
On the pleadings and evidence on record, the appellant has acquired the right over the property in question vide sale deed dated 11.01.2013.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench: Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil JJ.; judgment delivered by Vijaykumar A. Patil J.), W.A. No.980/2022 (LB-RES), decided 18.02.2025 (CAV): Intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 against the learned Single Judge's order dated 06.06.2022 in W.P.No.57554/2018 (LB-RES). The Single Judge had allowed the writ petition of respondent Nos.3 and 4, quashed the Taluk Panchayath order dated 30.11.2017 (which had set aside their khata entries), and directed joint continuation of the names of the appellant (purchaser in the KSFC auction, sale deed dated 11.01.2013) and respondent No.3 (under registered gift deed dated 01.09.2015 from respondent No.4) in the revenue records for V.P. Assessment No.2, Anandapuram Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District. The Division Bench held that both parties must establish their title and possession on their respective instruments either in the pending RSA No.1838/2024 or in appropriate proceedings; till adjudication on merits, both names shall continue in the revenue records maintained by respondent No.2. Found no error or infirmity in the Single Judge's direction; clarified that all observations are only for the present lis; writ appeal disposed of, no order as to costs. Interim order dated 30.12.2024 in RSA No.1838/2024 (staying the reversed O.S.No.152/2016 decree, protecting possession and access) noted.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB W.A. No.980/2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.980/2022 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. K.S. RAMANI IYENGAR W/O A.S. SRIHARI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT. F-BLOCK, GOPALA GOWDA EXTENSION OPP. RAMAKRISHNA SCHOOL SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577201 Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER by RUPA V A.S. SRIHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF S/O AKS IYENGAR KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT F BLOCK GOPALA GOWDA EXTENSION OPP. RAMAKRISHNA SCHOOL SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577201.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, SAGARA TALUK SAGARA TOWN PIN-577401.

¶13

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ANANDAPURAM SAGAR TALUK

¶14

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577412.

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB W.A. No.980/2022

¶16

SRI. A.S. BHOJRAJ S/O A.K. SUNDARAJA IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT. RAMAKRISHNA IYENGAR ROAD ANANDAPURAM VILLAGE SAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.

¶17

SRI. K.S. KRISHNAPRASAD S/O A.K. SUNDARAJA IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT. RAMAKRISHNA LODGE 1ST CROSS, DURGIGUDI SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 SRI. RAKESH B. BHAT, ADV., FOR R3 & R4)

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP No.57554/2018 TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE SHALL BE JOINT KHATA IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT No.3 AND APPELLANT MAY FILE A SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF HER TITLE IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE EXTENT AND THEREAFTER RENEW HER REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF KHATA IN RESPECT OF ENTIRE EXTENT DATED 06.06.2022. AWARD COSTS TO THIS APPEAL & ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB W.A. No.980/2022

¶25

CAV JUDGMENT

¶26

( PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL )

¶27

This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.57554/2018 (LB-RES).

¶28

The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 wherein the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by setting aside the khata entries made in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of property bearing V.P. Assessment No.2 of Anandapuram Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District. The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the pleading and material on record and on considering the rival contentions, allowed the writ petition by quashing the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the respondent

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB W.A. No.980/2022

¶30

No.1. The learned Single Judge has further directed to continue the names of the appellant and the respondent No.3 in the revenue records. It is further held that if the appellant desires to get her name entered in respect of the entire extent of land, she may file a suit for declaration of title in respect of the entire extent and thereafter, renew her request for transfer of khata in respect of the entire extent and until then, the names of both the appellant and the respondent No.3 shall be entered jointly in respect of the property bearing V.P. Assessment No.2 of Anandapuram Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

¶31

Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for

¶32

the appellant submits that the appellant has acquired the title to the entire extent of the property in V.P. Assessment No.2 of Anandapuram Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District by virtue of a sale deed dated

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB W.A. No.980/2022

¶34

11.01.2013 from the Karnataka State Financial

¶35

Corporation (KSFC) as the property was purchased by her father in a public auction. The mortgage deed executed by the father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 clearly indicates that the entire extent in the aforesaid assessment number was mortgaged to the KSFC and on default, the KSFC has auctioned the property in favour of the appellant. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have fraudulently created the gift deed in the year 2015 to knock off the portion of the property and considering this aspect, the respondent No.1 has allowed the appeal. It is also submitted that the name of the appellant only is required to be continued in the revenue records till the disposal of the pending cases between the parties. He seeks to allow the appeal.

¶36

Per contra, Sri.Rakesh B.Bhat, learned

¶37

counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 supports the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB W.A. No.980/2022

¶40

order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the learned Single Judge has protected the interests of both the parties. It is submitted that the suit filed by the appellant in O.S.No.152/2016 was reversed in R.A.No.17/2021 and the appeal against the said judgment is pending in RSA No.1838/2024. It is further submitted that in view of the pendency of the appeal before this Court, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶41

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents, perused the material available on record and have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and the evidence on record. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that the appellant has acquired the right over the property in question vide sale deed dated 11.01.2013. Admittedly, the father of the respondent

¶42

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB W.A. No.980/2022

¶43

Nos.3 and 4 committed default in payment of loan to the KSFC which resulted in the KSFC auctioning the property mortgaged in its favour and the appellant herein is the purchaser from the KSFC. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are claiming the right over the remaining portion of the property in V.P. Assessment No.2 of Anandapuram Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District. It is the specific case that the respondent No.4 has executed a registered gift deed dated 01.09.2015 in favour of the respondent No.3 and based on the said registered instrument, they sought to continue their name in the revenue records maintained by the respondent No.2 in respect of the property in question.

¶44

It is also admitted fact that the appellant has filed O.S.No.152/2016 seeking prayer of perpetual injunction. The jurisdictional Civil Court has decreed the suit by granting the relief sought by the appellant. The Appellate Court in R.A.No.17/2021 reversed the

¶45

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB W.A. No.980/2022

¶46

judgment passed in O.S.No.152/2016 and being

¶47

aggrieved by the same, the appellant is in appeal before this Court in RSA No.1838/2024. This Court in the said regular second appeal, granted interim order dated 30.12.2024 by admitting the appeal. The said Court stayed the impugned judgment, directed the respondents / defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Court further ordered that the appellant / plaintiff shall not remove the compound wall already put up by the respondents / defendants and the respondents / defendants shall not in any manner prevent the appellant / plaintiff from accessing the property in respect of which the compound wall has been put up.

¶48

The main dispute between the appellant and the private respondent is with regard to the extent of ownership and their respective possession over the

¶49

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB W.A. No.980/2022

¶50

property claimed by the appellant as well as the respondent No.3 in the regular second appeal. The appellant is claiming that he is the owner in possession of the entire property in V.P. Assessment No.2 and the respondent No.3 is claiming to be the owner of the remaining land measuring 1594.28 sq. mtrs. in V.P. Assessment No.2 of Anandapuram Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District. The learned Single Judge, considering the rival submissions and taking note of the pendency of the proceedings before the Civil Court, has come to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to direct the Authority to enter the names of the appellant and the respondent No.3 as the joint owners of the property in question. We are of the considered view that the appellant and the respondent No.3 are required to establish their title and possession over the lands they claim based on the sale deed and gift deed respectively, either in the pending regular second appeal or in the appropriate proceedings and till such a right is

¶51

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB W.A. No.980/2022

¶52

adjudicated and decided on merits, it would be appropriate to continue both the names of the appellant as well as the respondent No.3 in the revenue records maintained by the respondent No.2 in respect of the land in question. We do not find any error or infirmity in the finding of the learned Single Judge in directing the authorities to continue the names of both the parties in the revenue records. We make it clear that the observations made by the learned Single Judge and this Court are only to decide the present lis . With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ appeal is disposed of.

¶53

No order as to costs.

¶54

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶55

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 06.06.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.57554/2018 (LB-RES), allowing the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4, quashing the respondent No.1's order dated 30.11.2017, and directing joint continuation of the names of the appellant and respondent No.3 in the revenue records for V.P. Assessment No.2, Anandapuram Village.¶¶27
High Court of Karnataka (learned Single Judge) · 06.06.2022
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 (Taluk Panchayath authority) allowed the appellant's appeal by order dated 30.11.2017, setting aside the khata entries made in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of V.P. Assessment No.2, Anandapuram Village, Sagar Taluk.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed W.P.No.57554/2018 challenging the order dated 30.11.2017; the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing that order.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
The learned Single Judge further directed that the names of the appellant and respondent No.3 continue in the revenue records, and that if the appellant desired entry for the entire extent she could file a suit for declaration of title and thereafter renew her request for khata transfer.¶¶30
Prior proceeding
The appellant filed O.S.No.152/2016 seeking perpetual injunction; the jurisdictional Civil Court decreed the suit in her favour.¶¶44
Prior proceeding
In R.A.No.17/2021 the Appellate Court reversed the judgment in O.S.No.152/2016; the appellant's regular second appeal against it is pending before this Court as RSA No.1838/2024.¶¶40
Prior proceeding
In RSA No.1838/2024 this Court, by interim order dated 30.12.2024 while admitting the appeal, stayed the impugned judgment, restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession, directed that the plaintiff shall not remove the compound wall put up by the defendants, and that the defendants shall not prevent the plaintiff from accessing the property enclosed by the compound wall.¶¶47

Smt. K.S. Ramani Iyengar v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K.S. Ramani Iyengar v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ilyas Khan Vs the Competent Authority

Executive Engineer Vs Shivanna

M/S. Ktk Group Vs the Competent Authority and

Dr. Divya S. Nidhi Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.Rakshitha v Vs Union of India

Doddaiah Vs Lakshmamma