Chandrashekarachar Vs B Gangadharachar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Chandrashekarachar Vs B Gangadharachar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting IA no.19 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XVI Rules 6 & 7 of CPC in O.S.No.128/2014, seeking summons to Ramesh.C. (grandson of the late Patel) to produce the register maintained by the Patel of the village and to give evidence pertaining to the house list number and ownership of the scheduled property.

Court's answer

Since the office of Patel stood abolished after the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 came into force on 08.07.1961, the revenue records cannot be said to have been entered on the basis of the register maintained by the Patel.

Ratio / Principle

It is not in dispute that the revenue entries were not challenged by the plaintiffs at any point of time; the Trial Court was therefore fully justified in rejecting the application to summon the grandson of the Patel to produce the register of the late Patel and to depose on the same.

Key takeaways

There is a presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 with regard to revenue entries, and the party disputing the entries is required to produce necessary rebuttal evidence to disprove such presumption.ratio¶5
No illegality or irregularity was found in the order impugned, and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Summons to produce documents — Order XVI Rules 6 & 7 CPC — Article 227 writ petition by the legal representatives of deceased Chandrashekarachar, plaintiffs in O.S.No.128/2014 (Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunsur), against order dated 23.07.2021 rejecting IA No.XIX seeking summons to one Ramesh.C., grandson of the late village Patel, to produce the register maintained by the Patel and to give evidence on house list number and ownership of the scheduled property — Suit was for declaration and mandatory injunction; plaintiffs claimed the property as ancestral and allotted under a partition deed, defendants pleaded a registered sale deed from the plaintiffs' father — Petition dismissed: the office of Patel stood abolished on the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 coming into force on 08.07.1961, hence the revenue records cannot be said to have been entered on the basis of the Patel's register; the revenue entries (undisputedly standing in the name of the plaintiffs' father) were never challenged by the plaintiffs, and under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 the party disputing revenue entries must produce rebuttal evidence — no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42663 WP No. 14029 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

WRIT PETITION NO. 14029 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

CHANDRASHEKARACHAR

S/O LATE SIDDACHARI DEAD BY LRS

SMT. SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARCHAR R/AT NO.91 JANATHA COLONY BILIKERE HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

LATHA

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR W/O LATE BHADRACHARI R/AT NO.91 JANATHA COLONY BILIKERE HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

MOHAN

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR R/AT NO.91 JANATHA COLONY BILIKERE HUSNUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

4. MAHESHACHAR

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR R/AT NO.67/1 JANATHA COLONY BILIKERE HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

…PETITIONERS

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42663 WP No. 14029 of 2021

HC-KAR

(BY SRI B.S. NAGARAJ, ADV.)

AND:

B. GANGADHARACHAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT B M ROAD BILIKERE HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

ANNAIAHCHAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE KALACHAR R/AT BILIKERE VILLAGE OLD B M ROAD HUNSUR TALUK MYOSRE DISTRICT - 571 105.

MS. BEERAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O B. RAJEGOWDA R/AT MALLINATHAPURA VILLAGE BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

MR. PUTTACHAR S/O PUTTABASAVACHARI SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

4a. SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O LATE PUTTACHAR R/AT B.M. ROAD BILIKERE HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

4b. SRI MAHADESHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O LATE PUTTACHAR R/AT B M ROAD BILIKERE HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

4c. SMT. MAHADEVI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42663 WP No. 14029 of 2021

HC-KAR

D/O LATE PUTTAHCAR R/AT MULLURU JAIPUR HOBLI MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

4d. SMT. BHYGAYA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O LATE PUTTACHAR R/AT B M ROAD BILIKERE HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

4e. SRI RAVI

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE PUTTACHAR R/AT B M ROAD BILIKERE HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

4f. SRI VEERABHADRA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O LATE PUTTACHAR R/AT B M ROAD BILIKERE HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

SMT. CHANDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARCHAR W/O PUTTASOMACHAR R/AT HANCHYA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 010.

SMT. SUNDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR W/O K.T. CHANDRASHEKARACAHAR R/AT NO.1182, 19TH CROSS 29TH MAIN, E BLOCK J.P. NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 008.

SMT. VASANTHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR W/O LATE SIDDACHARI

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42663 WP No. 14029 of 2021

HC-KAR

R/AT GHANDAVAPURA CHIKKAIANACHATHRA HOBLI NANJANAGUDU TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 301.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. KALPANA P.V, ADV., FOR R-1; SRI A.K. NANDAN, ADV., FOR R-2; SRI M. BHASKAR, ADV., FOR R-3; SRI MAHADEV DESHAK, ADV.,FOR R-4(a) TO R-4(g); V/O/D 09.08.2021, NOTICE TO R-5 TO R-7 IS D/W)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.128/2014 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, WHEREAS REJECTED THE IA NO.XIX FILED UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 6 AND 7 OF CPC, FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS SEEKING SUMMONING OF DOCUMENTS, COPIES AT ANNEXURE-A.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

Plaintiff nos.1(a) to 1(g) are before this Court in this writ

petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 23.07.2021 passed on IA no.19 filed under Order XVI Rules 6 & 7 of CPC in O.S.No.128/2014 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunsur.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42663 WP No. 14029 of 2021

HC-KAR

Plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.128/2014 seeking the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, IA no.19 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XVI Rules 6 & 7 of CPC with a prayer to issue summons to one Ramesh.C., S/o late Chikkamanjappa, to produce the register maintained by the Patel of the village and to give evidence pertaining to the house list number, ownership of the scheduled property, etc. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court, vide the order impugned has rejected the said application and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

In the plaint, it is contended that plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the same was allotted to the plaintiffs under a partition deed. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have encroached the said property and have put up a construction. Per contra, defendants have denied the case of the plaintiffs and they have stated that the father of the plaintiffs has executed registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in their favour. Therefore,

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42663 WP No. 14029 of 2021

HC-KAR

there is a dispute with regard to the title of the suit schedule property.

Undisputedly, the revenue records of the land in question

stood in the name of plaintiff’s father, and according to the defendants, after the sale deed was executed in respect of the suit schedule property in their favour by the father of the plaintiffs, the revenue records have been transferred in their name. There is a presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, with regard to the revenue entries and the party disputing the entries is required to produce necessary rebuttal evidence to disprove such a presumption.

According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the entries in the revenue records were made based on the register maintained by the Patel of the village, and therefore, it is necessary to summon the said register.

Undisputedly, the Patel has died long back and the prayer made in the application is to summon the grandson of the Patel to produce the document. The office of Patel was

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42663 WP No. 14029 of 2021

HC-KAR

abolished after Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, came into force on 08.07.1961. Therefore, the revenue records cannot be said to have been entered on the basis of the register maintained by the Patel. It is not in dispute that the revenue entries were not challenged by the plaintiffs at any point of time, and therefore, the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs to summon the grandson of the Patel of their village to produce the register of late Patel and to depose on the same. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

KK