Disposed¶42

Sri T a Siddaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Khata registration – Writ of mandamus

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025WP/30165/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

khata registration; property register entry; municipal records confer no title, only property-tax liability; mandamus; Articles 226 and 227; Thumakuru Mahanagara Palike; Tumakuru; final decree FDP No.9/2015; O.S. No.557/2024 status quo order dated 26.03.2025; M.F.A No.3341/2025 ad-interim injunction dated 02.05.2025; application dated 16.03.2024 Annexure-D; O.S.No.576/1963; R.A.No.54/1968.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions: petitioner to register the final decree in FDP No.9/2015 in accordance with law and apply to respondent No.2 with required particulars; respondent No.2 to enter the petitioner's name in the property register/khata as requested in the application dated 16.03.2024 (Annexure 'D'); the entire order being subject to the outcome of O.S. No.557/2024. ¶42

Sri T a Siddaraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondent No.2 (Commissioner, Thumakuru Mahanagara Palike) to consider the petitioner's claim for acceptance of khatha/entry in the property register in respect of the properties requested under his application dated 16.03.2024 (Annexure-D). +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Direction (i): The petitioner shall get the final decree in FDP No.9/2015 registered in accordance with law, if not already registered, and thereafter file an application along with the required particulars before respondent No.2.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Entry of a person's name in the property register maintained by a Municipality or local authority is only for identifying the person liable to pay property tax; mere entry in the Municipal records confers no title and casts only a liability to pay property tax from time to time.

¶37

Key takeaways

A decree in favour of a person recognizes his right but does not confer title; consequently, the beneficiary of the final decree ought to have his name entered in the property register once the final decree is registered in accordance with law.ratio¶37
Mere pendency of some civil suits does not deprive the petitioner from getting his name entered in the property register in respect of the properties as requested in his application dated 16.03.2024.ratio¶37
Direction (ii): Respondent No.2 shall enter the name of the petitioner in the property register/khata in respect of the properties as requested in his application dated 16.03.2024 (Annexure 'D').

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Khata registration – Writ of mandamus – Entry of a person's name in the property register maintained by a Municipality/local authority is solely for identifying the person liable to pay property tax and confers no title; a decree recognises a right but does not confer title. A beneficiary of a final decree in F.D.P No.9/2015 could not be denied khata merely because connected proceedings (O.S. No.557/2024 and M.F.A No.3341/2025) were pending. Petitioner directed to register the final decree and apply to respondent No.2; the Commissioner, Thumakuru Mahanagara Palike directed to enter his name in the property register as requested in the application dated 16.03.2024, subject to the result of O.S. No.557/2024.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45279 WP No. 30165 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30165 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. T.A. SIDDARAJU SON OF LATE APPAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATHRU MAMATHA, 1^ST LINK ROAD, MARUTHY NAGAR, THUMAKURU-572 103

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIRAM ADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N. SURESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, THUMAKURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, THUMAKURU, PIN CODE-572 101

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45279 WP No. 30165 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR ACCEPTANCE OF KHATHA WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES AS REQUESTED UNDER THE APPLICATION DATED 16.03.2024, ANNEXURE-D.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for acceptance of Khatha with respect to the properties as requested under the application dated 16.03.2024 vide Annexure 'D' to the petition.

¶25

The petitioner claims that his father had filed O.S.No.576/1963 before the Court of the Additional Munsiff at Tumkur for a declaration that the sale of the suit properties by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 by a deed dated 26.06.1961 was ab initio void and did not confer any title on defendant No.1 in the suit. The said suit was decreed on 12.01.1968 and it was declared that the sale in favour of defendant

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45279 WP No. 30165 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

No.1 by the defendant No.2 did not bind the half share of the plaintiff / father of the petitioner herein, in the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.1 in the suit filed R.A.No.54/1968, which was allowed in part and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring that the plaintiff in the suit is entitled to

¶29

half share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties was confirmed and the suit of the plaintiff with regard to item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties was dismissed. Based upon this decree, the father of the petitioner filed F.D.P No.9/2015, in terms of which the property bearing old Municipal Nos.1266 and 1267 and present Nos.1382 and 1383 measuring East to West 136 feet and North to South 122 feet fell to the share of the father of the petitioner.

¶30

In the meanwhile, Mr. R.S. Prabhudev Aradhya – sibling of respondent No.3 in FDP No.09/2015 filed a suit in O.S. No.557/2024 against the petitioners in FDP No.9/2015, before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tumakuru where the Trial Court in terms of the order dated 26.03.2025, directed both the parties therein to maintain status quo till the next date. Likewise, this Court in

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45279 WP No. 30165 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

M.F.A No.3341/2025 filed by Mr. Prabhudev Aradhya, in terms of the order dated 02.05.2025 while allowing I.A. No.1/2025, granted an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, henchmen or anybody claiming for and on behalf of respondents therein from interfering with the appellant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule properties, till the next date of hearing. The respondent No.2 did not enter the name of the petitioner in the property register in respect of the properties as requested in his application dated 16.03.2024 given to the respondent No.2 vide Annexure ‘D’ to the petition based on the above proceedings and also taking into account the objections filed against the registration of the khata in the name of the petitioner.

¶34

The petitioner being a beneficiary of a decree in F.D.P No.9/2015 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Tumakuru, ought to have got the decree registered in a manner known to law so as to claim that his name should be entered in the property register maintained by the respondent No.2. A decree in favour of a person recognizes his right and

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45279 WP No. 30165 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

does not confer title upon him. It is now well settled that the purpose of entering the name of a person in the property register maintained by the Municipality or any local Authority is for identifying the person liable to pay property tax and nothing else. These entries are susceptible to change based on various circumstances including the outcome of litigation before the Courts. Mere entry in the Municipal records does not confer any title on the person but only casts a liability on him to pay the property tax from time to time. In the case on hand, the property in question fell to the share of the petitioner's father in a suit for partition which culminated in F.D.P No.9/2015. The name of the petitioner ought to have been entered in the property register soon after the final decree was registered in accordance with law. Mere pendency of some civil suits does not deprive the petitioner from getting his name entered in the property register in respect of the properties as requested in his application dated 16.03.2024 given to the respondent No.2 vide Annexure ‘D’ to the petition. Therefore, the petition deserves to be disposed off on the following terms:

¶38

i. The petitioner shall get the final decree in FDP No.9/2015 registered in accordance with law,

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45279 WP No. 30165 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

if not already registered and after getting it registered, he shall file an application along with the required particulars before the respondent No.2.

¶42

ii. The respondent No.2 shall enter the name of the petitioner in the property register/ khata in respect of the properties as requested in his application dated 16.03.2024 given to the respondent No.2 vide Annexure ‘D’ to the petition.

¶43

iii. It is made clear that this order is subject to any judgment that may be passed in O.S. No.557/2024 pending consideration before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tumakuru and in case if the plaintiff in O.S No.557/2024 succeeds in the suit, the khata that may be entered in the name of the petitioner would stand substituted based on the outcome of the suit.

¶44

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

BKN - para Nos.1 and 2 SMA-from para Nos.3 to till the end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Inaction of respondent No.2 (Commissioner, Thumakuru Mahanagara Palike) in not entering the petitioner's name in the property register/khata pursuant to his application dated 16.03.2024 (Annexure 'D'), in view of pending proceedings and objections to the khata registration.¶33
Commissioner, Thumakuru Mahanagara Palike (Respondent No.2)
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's father filed O.S.No.576/1963 before the Court of the Additional Munsiff at Tumkur seeking declaration that the sale of the suit properties by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 by deed dated 26.06.1961 was ab initio void.¶25
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.576/1963 was decreed on 12.01.1968, declaring that the sale in favour of defendant No.1 did not bind the half share of the plaintiff (father of the petitioner).¶25
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.1 filed R.A.No.54/1968, which was allowed in part: the declaration of the plaintiff's entitlement to half share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule was confirmed and the suit as regards item No.2 was dismissed.¶28
Prior proceeding
On the basis of the decree, the petitioner's father filed F.D.P No.9/2015, in which property bearing old Municipal Nos.1266 and 1267 (present Nos.1382 and 1383) measuring East-West 136 feet and North-South 122 feet fell to his share.¶29
Prior proceeding
Petitioner applied to respondent No.2 on 16.03.2024 (Annexure-D) for acceptance of khatha with respect to the properties.¶20
Prior proceeding
Mr. R.S. Prabhudev Aradhya, sibling of respondent No.3 in FDP No.09/2015, filed O.S. No.557/2024 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tumakuru, wherein the Trial Court by order dated 26.03.2025 directed the parties to maintain status quo till the next date.¶30
Prior proceeding
In M.F.A No.3341/2025 filed by Mr. Prabhudev Aradhya in this Court, by order dated 02.05.2025, I.A. No.1/2025 was allowed and an ad-interim order of temporary injunction was granted restraining interference with the appellant's possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties.¶33

Sri T a Siddaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T a Siddaraju v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr. Aslam Zackria Sait Vs the Assistant Revenue Officer

Sri.H.R.Nagaraja Setty Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs the Town Panchayath

National Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Varalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Judicial Department Employees House Vs the State of Karnataka