Sri. Suryanarayana @ Suresh vs The Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 8115 Kant

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

       WRIT PETITION NO.37126/2015 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SURYANARAYANA @ SURESH
S/O THIRUMALAGIRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O OLD POST OFFICE ROAD,
KYATHASANDRA, TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.
                                          ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE COMMISSIONER
       TUMKUR MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
       SHIVANANDA CIRCLE,
       TUMKUR-572 101.

2.     SRI. SURYANARAYANA SASTRY
       S/O LATE K.S. NANJUNDA SASTRY
       AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
       R/AT FLAT NO.203, NO.81-82,
       3RD MAIN ROAD, BIKASHIPUR,
       BANGALORE-560 078.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SMT. C.N.SANDHYA SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)
                                 2




      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTRIES MADE IN FORM-3 [RULE-20] IN THE NAME OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT, K.N.SURYANARAYANA SASTRY S/O LATE
K.S.NANJUNDA SASTRY, BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, THE
COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR MAHANAGAR PALIKE, IN THE
RELEVANT COLUMNS OF FORM NO.3 [RULE-20], FOR PROPERTY
BEARING SITE NO.59/A, PID NO.79982, OLD ASSESSMENT
NO.2161/A, NEW PROPERTY NO.650/59A/2979/2154, SITUATED
AT O.P.O ROAD, KYATHASANDRA, TUMKUR VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of

certiorari to quash the entries made in the name of

respondent No.2 in the relevant columns of the property

register extract concerning site No.59/A PID No.79982, Old

Assessment No.2161/A, New Property

No.650/59A/2979/2154 situate at OPO Road, Kyatsandra,

Tumkuru (henceforth referred to as the 'subject property').

2. The petitioner claims that he and his family

members are in possession and enjoyment of the subject

property. A suit in O.S.No.204/1987 was filed by

Mr.K.V.Raju for declaration, recovery of possession and

perpetual injunction in respect of the subject property

which was dismissed on 30.01.1990. This was challenged

in R.A.No.37/1990 before the First Appellate Court, which

was allowed by the judgment and decree dated

25.01.1993 and the case was remanded for framing

additional issues and disposal according to law. After

remand, the suit was again dismissed and R.A.No.70/2005

was filed. The First Appeal in R.A.No.70/2005 was allowed

and the suit was partly decreed declaring that Mr.K.V.Raju

is the owner of 1/6th share in the subject property. This

judgment was confirmed by this Court in

R.S.A.No.2428/2005. The petitioner claims that the decree

in R.A.No.70/2005 was not executed and the possession of

the subject property remained with the family of the

petitioner and the katha stood in the name of the father of

the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that he had paid the

property tax in the name of his father. When things stood

thus, the respondent No.2 entered into a partition with his

brother and sisters whereat, it was shown that the subject

property was allotted to his share. The Respondent No.2

thereafter got his name entered in the property register

extract. Feeling aggrieved by such an entry, the petitioner

has filed this writ petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2

submitted that the name of the respondent No.2 was

entered in the property register in view of the partition

deed executed by his brother and sisters and therefore,

the respondent No.2 had become the owner of the entire

extent.

4. It is now trite that the entry of a name of a

person in the property register does not confer any title on

such a person. It is seen from the partition deed dated

14.06.2012 that the subject property fell to the share of

respondent No.2 and it was on the basis of this document

that the name of the respondent No.2 is entered in the

property register extract. If the petitioner is entitled for

any share in the subject property pursuant to the

judgment and decree in R.A.No.70/2005, he is entitled to

enforce the said decree in the manner known to law and

thereafter, initiate proceedings for entering his name in the

property register. In that event, the entries in the property

register in the name of the respondent No.2 is bound to

give way.

5. Hence, it is held that the petitioner is entitled

to enforce the decree in R.A.No.70/2005 and thereafter,

take steps to enter his name in the property register

extract, no interference is called for to disturb entries

in the name of the respondent No.2. Hence, this writ

petition is dismissed, subject however to the observations

made above.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NR/-