Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rathnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.610/2022(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O SRI REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.21, CHANDRAGIRIDODDI
SILK FARM PSOT
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 161.
2. SMT. MANGALAGOWRAMMA
D/O SMT. RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.21, CHANDRAGIRIDODDI
SILK FARM PSOT
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA
DISTRICT - 562 161. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. ANURADHA URS. M.D, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
2
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
4. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O SRI R. SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.37/3, 3RD CROSS
1ST MAIN CHWODARA PALYA
BENGALURU - 560 023.
5. SRI MANJU
S/O LATE SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO 37/3, 3RD CROSS
1ST MAIN, CHOWDARA PALYA
BENGALURU - 560 023.
6. SHRUTI
D/O LATE SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO 37/3, 3RD CROSS
1ST MAIN, CHOWDARAPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 023. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 15.06.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.14932/2021 AND ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed by the
unsuccessful petitioners challenging the order dated
15.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court
in W.P.No.14932/2021.
2. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records
are, one Basavalingaiah had five children viz., Basavaiah,
Rathnamma (appellant no.1), Nagamma, Gowramma (mother
of respondents 5 & 6) and Shanthamma (respondent no.4.).
The daughters of Basavalingaiah had instituted a suit for
partition in O.S.No.788/1989 in respect of five items of
agricultural lands against their brother Basavaiah. Smt.
Nagamma who was originally one of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.788/1989 was subsequently transposed as defendant
no.2 in the said suit. O.S.No.788/1989 was decreed on
11.11.1993 and the plaintiffs and defendants were held
entitled for 1/5th share in the schedule properties. As against
the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.788/1989,
defendant no.1 - Basavaiah had filed R.A.No.1/1994, which
was dismissed on 23.01.2022 and the Regular Second Appeal
filed by him in R.S.A.No.327/2002 was also dismissed on
10.12.2007. Therefore, the preliminary decree passed in
O.S.No.788/1989 had attained finality.
3. During the pendency of the Regular Appeal, the
plaintiffs had initiated final decree proceedings before the
Trial Court in FDP.No.28/1994 and a final decree was also
drawn on 11.10.2001. In the meanwhile, the revenue entries
in respect of the lands which were the subject matter of the
suit were ordered to be mutated in the name of the children
of late Basavalingaiah as per the mutation orders passed in
M.R.No.18/1996-97. Thereafter, Smt. Gowramma and Smt.
Shanthamma allegedly agreed for the revenue entries to be
mutated in favour of appellant no.1 herein, and accordingly,
the name of appellant no.1 was entered in the revenue
records on 31.12.2001. Subsequently, Gowramma,
Shanthamma and appellant no.1 herein jointly sold certain
portion of the land under two registered sale deeds dated
18.01.2011. After executing the aforesaid sale deeds, on
07.05.2011 appellant no.1 herein has gifted the remaining
land in favour of her daughter - appellant no.2 herein under a
registered gift deed and based on the said document, the
khatha of the land which was the subject matter of the gift
deed was transferred in the name of appellant no.2.
4. When the matter stood thus, the legal
representatives of Gowramma and Shanthamma, have
preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), before the
Assistant Commissioner, challenging the entries made in the
revenue records of the land which were the subject matter of
the suit, on the ground they are contrary to the final decree.
The Assistant Commissioner had dismissed the appeal and in
revision, the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner and had directed to
enter the names in the revenue records of the lands in
question in accordance with the final decree passed in
FDP.No.28/1994. Being aggrieved by the same, the
appellants had filed W.P.No.14932/2021 which was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order
impugned. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the
appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act was filed after a delay
of 10 years, and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner was
justified in dismissing the same. She submits that with the
consent of her sisters - Gowramma and Shanthamma, the
revenue records of the property were changed in the name of
appellant no.1 and the three sisters have jointly executed the
sale deed in respect of the portion of the land. She submits
that thereafter a registered gift deed has been executed in
the name of appellant no.2 and already entries are made in
the name of appellant no.2 on the strength of the registered
gift deed. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was not
justified in setting aside the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner directing to enter the names in the revenue
records as per the final decree passed in FDP No.28/1994.
6. We have carefully appreciated the arguments
addressed by the learned Counsel for the appellants and also
perused the material on record.
7. The undisputed facts of the case are, the rights of
the contesting parties herein with regard to the lands in
question have been already adjudicated in a suit for partition
and pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in the said suit
in O.S.No.788/1989, a final decree has been already passed
in FDP No.28/1994. The existence of the final decree granted
by a competent Civil Court in FDP.No.28/1994 was never
brought to the notice of the revenue authorities and the
revenue entries were allegedly changed on the basis of the
consent of two sisters. Subsequently, appellant no.1 and the
other two sisters have jointly sold certain portion of the lands
under two registered sale deeds and in respect of the said
land, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the
entries in the revenue records cannot be mutated in
accordance with the final decree and the same are required to
be done as per the registered deeds executed by the three
sisters on 18.01.2011.
8. In so far as the remaining items of lands are
concerned, the learned Single Judge has observed that the
entries in the revenue records of the said lands are required
to be done in accordance with the final decree passed in
FDP.No.28/1994. The learned Single in paragraph no.18 has
observed as under:
"18. In my view, this reasoning of the
Deputy Commissioner cannot be found fault
with, especially when it is the admitted case of
the 1st petitioner herself that there is a decree
granted by the Civil Court. Once a decree has
been granted by the Civil Court, neither the 1st
petitioner, nor her sisters can wish away the
said preliminary decree and demand the
revenue authorities to mutate the names in the
revenue records to suit their convenience.
Even if such a mutation is made, since it would
be contrary to the decree passed by the Trial
Court, the same cannot be sustained. The
Deputy Commissioner was, therefore,
absolutely justified in allowing the revision and
directing the revenue records to be made out
in accordance with the final decree
proceedings.
9. Undisputedly, Smt. Gowramma and Smt.
Shanthamma are not the parties to the gift deed and the said
deed has been executed only by appellant no.1 in favour of
her daughter - appellant no.2. The validity of the said deed
has been questioned by respondents 4 to 6 herein in
O.S.No.247/2021 and considering this aspect of the matter,
the learned Single Judge has observed that if the
jurisdictional court upholds the gift deed executed in favour of
appellant no.2 and dismissed the suit of respondents 4 to 6,
the revenue authorities would be bound by such a decree.
10. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered
view that the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court does not suffer from any illegality or
irregularity which calls for interference. We, therefore, find no
good grounds to interfere with the said order. Accordingly,
the writ appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
JUDGE
KK
