Mr Manjunath Vs the Executive Officer

SMT. SAKAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT MYLAPURA VILLAGE JADAGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-562114

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44818 WP No. 54730 of 2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. M. RAMA MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2018 PASSED IN KA.NI.YA/TA.PAN.HO/O.S. NO.14/2015-16, PRODUCED IN ANNEXURE-L.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 14.11.2018

¶24

passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.�ಾ.�.ಯ/�ಾ.ಪಂ.�ೊ/�ಾ�ೆ ಸಂ�ೆ�/OS No-14/2015-16 filed under Section 269 of the

¶25

Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

¶26

(i) The facts in brief that are necessary for the

¶27

purpose of considering this writ petition are that the property bearing Grama Tana No.26A of Doddanallala Gram Panchayat, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, was owned and possessed by one Muniyappa and his name was entered in the records of the Panchayat as the person responsible for payment of property tax. The said Muniyappa died on 28.12.2014. The respondent No.3 is the daughter of

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44818 WP No. 54730 of 2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

said Muniyappa. She claimed that her father Sri. Muniyappa had executed an unregistered gift deed dated 10.11.2014 and her four siblings had executed a confirmation deed dated 12.12.2015. Based on these documents, respondent No.3 made a request before the respondent No.2 to transfer khata to her name. The respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 21.01.2016 stating that the petitioner had raised objections against entering the name of respondent No.3 as there was no gift deed executed by Muniyappa. The respondent No.3 challenged the said endorsement before respondent No.1 in an appeal under Section 269 of the Act, 1993. The said appeal was allowed and the endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 was set aside and the respondent No.2 was directed to register the name of respondent No.3 in the property register.

¶31

(ii) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession of the property was always with the family of the petitioner and that at a partition dated 25.07.1964, the property in question fell to the share of father of respondent

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:44818 WP No. 54730 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

No.3. However, the father of respondent No.3 never took possession of the same and therefore, property was always in the possession of the petitioner's family and hence, they had perfected their title over the property by adverse possession. He contends that the respondent No.1 had entertained the request of the respondent No.3 for transferring her name in the khata based on an unregistered gift deed executed by her father and an unregistered confirmation deed executed by her siblings. He thus, contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is not in accordance with law and appropriate remedy was to direct the respondent No.3 to approach the Civil Court and obtain a declaration.

¶37

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner has admitted in the writ petition that the property in question fell to the share of father of respondent No.3 at a partition dated 25.07.1964. He contends that even in the absence of a gift deed, respondent No.3 being the natural legal heir was entitled to get her name entered in the property register. He therefore, contends that respondent No.1 was justified in directing the respondent No.2 to enter the name of respondent No.3 in the property register.

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:44818 WP No. 54730 of 2018

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶42

supported the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶43

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶44

The petitioner has stated in the writ petition as

¶45

follows:

¶46

"2. The Property has always been in the possession of the Petitioner's family. When things stood thus, the Petitioner's grandfather alongwith his siblings entered into a partition deed dated 25/07/1964, wherein the Property fell into the share of one Late Muniyappa, who is the father of the 3^rd Respondent. Even though the said property fell into the share of Late Muniyappa, he never took possession of the same. The Property was always in the possession of the Petitioner's family and they had perfected their title over the Property by adverse possession."

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44818 WP No. 54730 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

It is therefore, evident that the petitioner does not

¶50

have any title to the property but is setting up adverse title over the property in question. Once the petitioner sets up such an adverse title, he has to admit the title of Muniyappa, which he has done. He has not disputed that the respondent No.3 is the daughter of said Muniyappa. If that be so, unless the petitioner establishes that he has got better title, he cannot stop the name of the respondent No.3 from being entered in the property register. This is notwithstanding the fact that the gift deed executed in favour of respondent No.3 is not registered. Under the circumstances, there is no error committed by the respondent No.1 in passing the impugned order warranting interference in this writ petition.

¶51

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed . It is however, open for the petitioner to establish his right before the Civil Court in accordance with law.

¶52

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶53

PMR

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Mr Manjunath v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Manjunath 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

Sri Anjanamurthy N Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Padma Vs the City Municipal Council

Balamma Vs Principal Secretary

Smt Lokeshwari Vs Smt Saraswathamma

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Kirloskar Electric Company Employees Housing Co. Op Society (Regd.)

Ramesh v Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike