Sridevi Raghavendra Vs M.D.Usman

SMT. SHABANA WIFE OF SRI ABBUBAKKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.4-6-550/2, AKSHAYA APARTMENTS, KARANGALPADI, KODIALBAILU, MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT 575 003.

¶30

KARAMATHULLA SAIT AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:15423-DB WA No. 719 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

SON OF LATE SULEIMAN SAIT,

¶35

K. KASEEM SAIT AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS SON OF LATE SULEIMAN SAIT

¶36

IQBAL SULEIMAN SAIT AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS SON OF LATE SULEIMAN SAIT

¶37

SMT. THAHIRA BANU WIFE OF LATE K. REHEMATHULLA SAIT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶38

MOHAMMED ASHFAN SAIT @ NAWAZ SON OF LATE K. REHEMATHULLA SAIT, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶39

SRI MOHAMMED PARVEZ SAIT SON OF LATE K. REHEMATHULLA SAIT, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶40

R-6 TO 11 ARE ALL RESIDING AT SAIT MANSION, KABETTU CHOLPADY, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 574 104.

¶41

DADA RICE FLOUR AND OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 OFFICE AT DADA RICE FLOUR BUILDING, KAVOORU, DEREBAILU VILLAGE, MANGALJURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 006.

¶42

THE TAHSILDAR MANGALURU TALUK, MAIDAN ROAD, BHAVATHI, BUNDER MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:15423-DB WA No. 719 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

(BY SRI. P.P.HEDGE, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 (VC); SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R2 TO R4 AND R13; VIDE ORDER DATED:05.11.2025, R12 IS DELETED; R8 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶48

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/04/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.1006/2025 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN WP NO.1006/2025 WITH COSTS.

¶49

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

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶51

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶52

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶53

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning

¶54

the judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the

¶55

writ Court in W.P.No.1006/2025 (KLR-RES), instituted by petitioner/respondent No.1 herein.

¶56

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶57

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15423-DB WA No. 719 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

The dispute between the parties is in respect of the

¶60

revenue entries of the property bearing Sy.No.106/1AP2 ad-measuring 4 acres 83 cents situated at Derebail Village, Mangaluru Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule property' ). One Sri. Dada Haji Ibrahim Halari got this land from one Sujir Damodar Ramachandra Nayak through registered sale deed dated 30.06.1946. Sri. Dada Haji Ibrahim Halari along with others floated a company on 27.02.1962 in the name and style of M/s. Dada Rice, Flour and Oil Mills (Private) Limited, represented by Managing Director Sri Venkatesh Pai. The main objective of the Company was to acquire and take over the property, the building and machineries of Sri Dada Haji Ibrahim Halari situated at Kavoor, Derebail Village, Mangalore at an agreed valuation of Rs.2,50,000/- as per Agreement dated 19.10.1961.

¶61

Since, the time of incorporation of the said Company,

¶62

in the revenue records, the name of M/s. Dada Rice, Flour and Oil Mills (Private) Limited was reflected as the owner

¶63

6 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:15423-DB WA No. 719 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

of the said land. It is further stated that Mr. M. Venkatesh Pai, one of the Directors and the Managing Director of M/s. Dada Rice, Flour and Oil Mills (Private) Limited, had allegedly created a concocted and fabricated sale deed dated 07.07.1962 showing that Sri Dada Haji Ibrahim Halari had sold the property bearing Revenue Survey No.106/1, measuring to an extent of 5.54 cents, out of total extent of 8 acres 45 cents in favour of M/s. Dada Rice, Flour and Oil Mills (Private) Limited.

¶67

Though an extent of 2 acres 15 cents of land was sold in favour of M/s. Dada Rice, Flour and Oil Mills (Private) Limited, under the registered sale deed dated 06.07.1962, Tahsildar, Mangaluru Taluk, passed an order dated 28.05.1992 in MR No. 432/91-92 mutating the land in Survey No. 106/1AP2 measuring an extent of 4 acres 83 cents in the name of Sri Devi Raghavendra Nayak Family Foundation Private Limited.

¶68

Sri Dada Haji Ibrahim Halari had died on 27.05.1980 leaving behind the petitioner before the writ Court as his

¶69

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15423-DB WA No. 719 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

legal heir. The order of mutation in M.R.No.432/19911992 was challenged by M/s. Dada Rice, Flour and Oil Mills Private Limited., by its purported owner Sri M.D.Usman. The order was also challenged by Smt.Shabana Daughter of Jeenam Dawood.

¶72

The Assistant Commissioner set aside the order of mutation allegedly passed by the Tahsildar inasmuch as no such order dated 18.03.1992 passed by the Tahsildar was found in the record. This order passed by the Assistant Commissioner came to be challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 17.12.2024 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Tahsildar.

¶73

The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the writ Court. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has held that even the Deputy Commissioner does not state in his order that the order of the Tahsildar dated 18.03.1992 exists in the file. As nobody is in possession of the order dated

¶74

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15423-DB WA No. 719 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

18.03.1992, the learned Single Judge has not found any error with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner setting aside the M.R.No.432/1991-92 and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶77

The learned Single Judge has also opined that the parties before the Court may approach the competent Civil Court and establish their ownership/title over the property in question, and if such a decree is obtained, the revenue entries would abide by the result of the civil proceedings.

¶78

We have been informed that two civil suits have been filed for declaration and injunction. As the disputed question of facts are involved particularly, the existence of the order dated 18.03.1992 allegedly passed by the Tahsildar, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. However, all contentions are kept open for the parties to be urged in the civil proceedings to establish their respective right/title over the land in question and as observed by the learned Single Judge the

¶79

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15423-DB WA No. 719 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

entry in the revenue records in respect of the land in question would abide by the judgment and decree to be passed by the Trial Court in the pending civil suits or any other suit to be filed. The Trial Court is directed to decide

¶82

the suits in O.S.No.238/2025 and O.S.No.889/2025 pending before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year.

¶83

With the above observation, we dispose of this appeal.

¶84

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any do not survive for consideration, hence stand disposed of.

¶85

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶86

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶87

NG CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sridevi Raghavendra v. M.D.Usman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sridevi Raghavendra v. M.D.Usman

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. B. S. Manjunath Vs M/S. Corzowrent India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Aurangazeb @ Kabeeruddin Vs the Manager

Sri. Sattar Mujahid Khan S Vs Royal Sundaram All Ins Co. Ltd.

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri K v Rudramurthy

Smt. Kenchamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Devi Raghavendra Nayak Family Foundation Vs Smt.Shabana