Sri Thirumalappa vs The Joint Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 6043 Kant

                         1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                      BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

   WRIT PETITION NO.43720 OF 2013(LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:

SRI. THIRUMALAPPA,
@ MUNITHIRUMALAPPA,
S/O LATE YARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.43/1,
HOSAPALYA MAIN ROAD,
HOSPALYA, MADIWALA POST,
BANGALORE - 68.
SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT BENEFITS
NOT CLAIMED.
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
   BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
   BOMMANAHALLI ZONE, BANGALORE - 560 068.

2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
   BOMMANAHALLI RANGE,
   BBMP, BANGALORE - 560 068.

3. SAMPANGIYAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA,
   SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
   AMENDED AS PER V.C.O DATED 17.03.2022

3(A) SMT. SRIMATHI,
     D/O LATE SAMPANGIYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

3(B) SURPIYA S,
     D/O LATE SAMPANGIYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
                          2

3(C) SUSHMA S,
     D/O LATE SAMPANGIYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

3(D) NAYANA S,
     D/O LATE SAMPANGIYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

3(E) MARIYAMMA,
     D/O LATE SAMPANGIYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

3(F) ARUNA S,
     D/O LATE SAMPANGIYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

PROPOSED RESPONDENT 3(A) TO 3(F) ARE
RESIDING AT NO.313, HOSAPALYA VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 571 109.

3(G) SUNANDA S,
     D/O LATE SAMPANGIYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.77, H S GARDEN,
     CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK,
     CHIKKABALLAPURA.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
    SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A) to (F))

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE          BRUHATH BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE. IE., 1ST
RESPONDENT HEREIN IN B.B.M.P BY THE ORDER DATED
20.07.2013 VIDE ANN-A AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE R-2 HEREIN BY THE ORDER DATED
16.1.2009 IN KATHA NO.352/342/340 VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                               3

                            ORDER

The katha in question has been structured on the

basis of a registered Partition Deed dated 09.07.1990 a

copy whereof is at Anenxure-R3 to the Statement of

Objections. At Schedule B in the said Deed, the

measurement of the property in question has been

shown to be 10946 sqft. Ordinarily, the entries in the

Property Registers are effected on the basis of title

documents and the registered Partition Deed happens to

be one such indisputably.

2. The records reveal that there was an

Injunctive Suit in O.S.No.3980/1993 filed by one Mr.

Muniyappa, the father of Respondent NO.3 herein who

having died the LRs have succeeded to his stead. This

injunctive suit was decreed to the extent of 90" x 120' ft

which arithmetically works out to 10800 sqft whereas the

katha is 10946sqft. Respondent No.3 was not a party to

the same. This decree was put in challenge in RFA

No.8966/2000 filed by the plaintiff-Muniyappa and the

same came to be dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of

this Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2008, a copy

whereof is at Annexure-D, affirming the said judgment &

decree of the Court below. Be that as it may.

3. The third respondent too has filed a civil Suit

in O.S.No.27125/2008 and that too came to be decreed

on 25.11.2020 by a bulky judgment running into 94

pages. An Injunctive Decree has been granted by the

learned XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore,

covering an area of 10800 sqft. This matches with the

extent mentioned in the katha now put in challenge. It

is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

this decree is put in challenge in RFA No.1650/2021 and

that challenge is laid by the Respondent No.3 herein as

well in RFA No.383/2021. Both the appeals are stated to

be pending and independently of each other.

4. As already mentioned above, the katha is

effected on the basis of the Partition Deed dated

09.07.1990 and now that two appeals are pending and

the result of the same would cast light or shadow on the

katha in question, is the admitted position at the Bar.

In the above circumstances, this petition is

disposed off and the changes in the katha if any, shall be

subject to outcome of the appeals in question, that are

pending on the appellate side of this Court.

Ordered accordingly.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv