B N Sudhasingh Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. BALAJISINGH S/O LATE SURAJ BHANSINGH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT BHAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ABBENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHYATH, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶26

SRI. KUBER SINGH S/O LATE SURAJ BHANSINGH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT BHAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ABBENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHYATH, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶27

SRI. SHANKAR SINGH S/O LATE SURAJ BHANSINGH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT BHAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, ABBENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHYATH, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130

¶28

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SINGH, S/O LATE B G HARI SIGH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT BHAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, ABBENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHYATH,

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:28812 WP No. 17352 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R2; SRI. YADUNANDAN N, ADVOCATE FOR R9; SRI. M. S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

¶35

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER AND DIRECTION MAY BE ISSUED TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/04/2026 MADE IN CASE NO.TPM.GPA 11/2019-20 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AT ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.,

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

There are ongoing civil disputes between the petitioner and the sixth to ninth respondents with rival claims over a property measuring East to West - 100 feet and North to South - 65 feet of Bhavanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Abbenahalli Grama Panchayath, Malur Taluk, Kolar District [ the subject property ].

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:28812 WP No. 17352 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The petitioner’s suit in O.S. No.87/2015

¶44

on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur is decreed on 26.06.2018 restraining the sixth to eighth respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession of the subject property. This Judgment is called in question in the Appeal in RA No.32/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Malur. The sixth to eighth respondents have, prior to the decree in this suit, executed a Gift Deed in favour of Smt. Geetha Bai [ their sister ] and she had the benefit of the revenue entries for the subject property. Based on this gift deed, Smt. Geetha Bai has sold the subject property after the decree in O.S. No.87/2015 in favour of the ninth respondent under the Sale Deed dated 13.01.2022, and the ninth respondent is also given the benefit of the revenue entries.

¶45

At the instance of the petitioner, after the

¶46

decree and with there being no interim orders in the Regular Appeal, the revenue entries for the subject

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:28812 WP No. 17352 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

property are transferred in favour of the petitioner vide Order dated 24.10.2024. The ninth respondent has called in question this order before this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.299/2025. This Court has disposed of this petition on 25.11.2025 observing

¶51

thus restoring the proceedings for reconsideration.

¶52

“ 7. It is not in dispute that the decree

¶53

passed in OS No.87/2015 is under examination in RA No.32/2018. Therefore, on all counts, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 deserves to be interfered as the impugned order has a consequence of setting aside the katha which is made out in the name of the petitioner and his predecessor in title.

¶54

8. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed by respondent No.3 in Appeal No.Tha.Pan.Ma.GPA/11/2-19-20 (Annexure H) is set aside. The proceedings before the respondent No.3 is restored. The respondent No.3 shall direct impleadment of the petitioner herein as one of the respondents

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:28812 WP No. 17352 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

and thereafter consider the appeal on merits and in accordance with law.”

¶59

The second respondent, after the afore remand by the impugned order dated 17.04.2026, has cancelled the order dated 24.10.2024 directing the revenue entries to continue in favour of the ninth respondent.

¶60

Sri T M Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene because the second respondent without jurisdiction has observed that the petitioner's father has transferred the subject property covered under the Revenue Entry No.33/2021 on 28.04.1993 deciding on the identity of the subject property which is a matter pending in RA No.32/2018. The learned counsel seeks to elaborate on why the second respondent's conclusion is factually incorrect proposing to rely on certain factual assertions stating that the ninth respondent has now filed an original

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:28812 WP No. 17352 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

suit in O.S. No.540/2024 for declaration on the file of

¶65

the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur.

¶66

Sri Bopanna Belliappa, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the first and second respondents, Sri Yadunandan N, a learned counsel who is on caveat for the ninth respondent, are heard. The question, viz ., whether the petitioner's father has sold the immovable property covered in Revenue Entry No. 33/2021 is an aspect that must be decided by the civil Court. The third respondent could not have reached any conclusion in this regard. Even if the third respondent has reached such a conclusion, that would be completely extraneous to the dispute pending in the afore proceedings before the civil Courts between the petitioner and the ninth respondent. The civil Court will have to examine the same. This Court must, therefore, observe that the petitioner cannot be put to any prejudice because of

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:28812 WP No. 17352 of 2026

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

the observation by the third respondent in this regard

¶71

in the impugned order.

¶72

The next question is: should this Court

¶73

interfere with the direction to cancel the revenue entries in favour of the petitioner and to restore the revenue entries as it stood prior to 24.10.2024 ? As observed by this Court by order dated 25.11.2025 in the writ petition in W.P. No. 299/2025, the sixth to eighth respondents have executed a Gift Deed dated 21.01.2014 in favour of Smt. Geetha Bai, who in turn has executed the Sale Deed dated 13.01.2022 and Smt. Geetha Bai had the benefit of revenue entries for the subject property covered under the Gift Deed, which stands transferred in favour of the ninth respondent under the Sale Deed dated 13.01.2022.

¶74

The petitioner has applied for the change

¶75

in the revenue entries during the pendency of the appeal relying upon the Judgment and decree dated 26.06.2018 in O.S. No.87/2015 because there is no

¶76

9 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:28812 WP No. 17352 of 2026

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

interim order in the appeal in R.A. No.32/2018, which is filed against the decree for a permanent injunction in this suit. The order dated 24.10.2024 is

¶80

without notice to the ninth respondent, which is the reason for this Court’s interference earlier in W.P. No. 299/2025. The learned counsel for the ninth respondent submits that this respondent would be entitled to the revenue entries until there is a final adjudication in the suit for declaration in O.S. No.540/2024.

¶81

8. This Court is not persuaded to accept this

¶82

contention because the purchase, as observed earlier is during the pendency of the suit, and the change in the revenue is after the decree for permanent injunction. Any vindication of title would be only when the Regular Appeal in R.A. No.32/2021 is decided first and subject to observation on the institution of the suit for declaration O.S.

¶83

No.540/2024. In the circumstances, this Court must

¶84

10 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:28812 WP No. 17352 of 2026

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

answer the question as afore to conclude that the revenue entries must be as it stood prior to the order dated 24.10.2024 and there must be a change subject to the outcome Regular Appeal in R.A. No.32/2018 and the observation that could be made therein on the institution of the suit in O.S. No.540/2024. Though some submissions are made on the question of possession of the subject property, this Court need not be engaged on such question as that is covered in the pending appeal in R.A. No.32/2018.

¶88

The writ petition stands disposed of

¶89

accordingly.

¶90

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶91

AN/-

B N Sudhasingh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B N Sudhasingh v. 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

Punith B R Vs the Town Municipal Council

National Assessment and Accreditation Council (Naac) Vs Dr. Priya N (M.Sc., Ph.D)

Ms Sandra Alistair Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority

Mr Chimanlal Talreja Vs Propcare Developers Private Limited

R Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Shankara Shet Towers Association Vs the State of Karnataka