Smt Rathnamma vs Jayamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 4113 Kant

                             1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             WRIT APPEAL No.4046/2017


BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. RATHNAMMA
       W/O LATE SHIVARAM ARADHYA,
       AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

2.     SIDDARAMA ARADHYA
       S/O LATE MALLA ARADHYA,
       AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

3.     GIRIJAMBIKA
       W/O LATE SIDDAMALLA ARADHYA,
       AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

4.     J. S. JAYARAMA ARADHYA
       AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

       APPELLANTS ARE RESIDENTS OF
       JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
       ARKERE HOBLI,
       SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
       MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.       ... APPELLANTS

(By Sri R.S.Ravi, Sr. Counsel for
    Sri L.Raja, Adv.)
                                2


AND:

1.     JAYAMMA
       W/O J.C.JAVARE GOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
       R/AT D.NO.84, 23RD CROSS,
       EAST JAYANAGAR, 12TH MAIN,
       BENGALURU-560011.

2.     LINGE GOWDA @ CHIKKA THIMAIAHA,
       AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
       S/O J.C.JAVARE GOWDA,
       JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
       ARKERE HOBLI,
       SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
       MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

3.     SAVITHRAMMA
       D/O LATE CHAME GOWDA
       @ DODDA THAMMAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

4.     J.C.ASHOK
       S/O LATE CHAME GOWDA
       @ DODDA THAMMAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

5.     J.C.PRAKASH
       SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

5(A)   SMT. YESHODA
       W/O LATE J.C.PRAKASH,
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

5(B)   SRI AKSHAYA
       S/O LATE J.C.PRAKASH,
       AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

6.     SMT. J.C.MAMATHA
       D/O LATE CHAME GOWDA
       @ DODDA THAMMAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

7.     J.C.PRASANNA
       S/O LATE CHAME GOWDA
                              3


      @ DODDA THAMMAIAH,
      AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

      RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 7 ARE THE
      RESIDENTS OF JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
      ARKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
      MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

8.    DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      MANDYA DISTRICT,
      MANDYA - 571401.

9.    ASST. COMMISSIONER,
      PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
      SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
      MANDYA DISTRICT.

10.   TAHSILDAR,
      SRIRANGAPATNA,
      MANDYA DISTRICT.                    ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri H.C.Shivaramu, Adv. for R1 to R3,
     R5 to R7 & also for LRs. of
     Deceased R5 [R5(A) & (B)];
     Smt. Vani.H., AGA, for R8 to R10;
     V/O dt. 04.06.2019 notice to R4 is H/S)

     This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order
passed in the Writ Petition 13384/2011 dated 18.04.2017.

      This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this
day, Vishwajith Shetty J., delivered the following:

                     JUDGMENT

This intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the

order dated 18th April 2017 passed by the learned Single

Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.13384/2011 (KLR-

RR/SUR).

2. The relevant facts as revealed from the records

are:

guntas situated at Jakkanahalli village, Arakere Hobli,

Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, was granted in

favour of one Lingegowda, s/o Chamegowda in the year

1930 and out of the said land, 2 acres 20 guntas of land

was sold by Lingegowda in favour of one Angadi

Siddarama Aradhya under a registered sale deed dated

30.06.1932. Thereafterwards the name of Angadi

Siddarama Aradhya and his brother J.S.Siddarama

Aradhya were entered in the land revenue records of the

land in question, which was the subject matter of the sale

deed dated 30.06.1932. The appellants herein are the

legal heirs of said Angadi Siddarama Aradhya and his

brother J.S.Siddarama Aradhya. Respondent Nos.1 to 7,

who claim under the original grantee allegedly got their

names entered in the revenue records of the land in

question somewhere in the year 2001-02 and the

appellants after coming to know about the same, had

challenged it before the 9th respondent Assistant

Commissioner, who had dismissed the appeal filed by the

appellants. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants

had preferred a revision petition before the 8th respondent

Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner vide

his order dated 31.01.2011 allowed the said revision

petition and directed to enter the name of the appellants

in the revenue records of the land in question. This order

was questioned by respondent Nos.1 to 7 before this court

in Writ Petition No.13384/2011 and the learned Single

Judge of this court vide the order impugned has allowed

the said writ petition and quashed the order passed by the

Deputy Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the

appellants, who were respondent nos.4 to 7 in the writ

petition, have preferred this appeal.

3. Learned senior counsel Sri.R.S.Ravi appearing on

behalf of the appellants submits that pursuant to the sale

deed dated 30.06.1932, the entries in respect of the

revenue lands were made in favour of the purchaser

Angadi Siddarama Aradhya and his brother J.S.Siddarama

Aradhya and the same continued till the year 1978-79 and

abruptly without any reason thereafterwards the entries

were deleted. Subsequently the respondent nos.1 to 7 got

entered their names clandestinely in the revenue records

of the land, which was the subject matter of the sale deed

dated 30.06.1932 and the Deputy Commissioner having

appreciated this aspect of the matter had rightly allowed

the revision petition and directed the concerned

authorities to enter the name of the appellants in the

revenue records of the land in question. He submits that

for the purpose of seeking mutation on the basis of a

registered sale deed, no period is fixed and having regard

to Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964,

the revenue authorities are bound to make necessary

entries in the revenue records of the lands, which are

subject matter of the registered sale deed. In support of

his argument, he has relied upon the judgment of this

court in the case of Golappa -vs- Malakappa reported in

ILR 1995 KAR 118. He has also referred to the

documents produced by him in this appeal along with the

application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC and

submits that those documents relate to the entries, which

stood in the name of original purchaser Angadi Siddarama

Aradhya and his brother J.S.Siddarama Aradhya which

had continued till the year 1978-79. He submits that

those documents were placed before the Deputy

Commissioner and it is only on the basis of the same, he

had allowed the revision petition. He accordingly prays to

set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 7 submits that the land in question

has been granted in their favour and they are in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the same. He submits that

the revenue authorities cannot decide the title or give any

finding with regard to the possession of the land and

therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in

passing the impugned order. He refers to a Full Bench

judgment of this court in the case of Jayamma and

Others -vs- The State of Karnataka and Others in

Writ Petition No.6872/2013 (KLR) DD 24.01.2020 and

submits that since there are disputed questions of facts

with regard to the possession and title of the property, the

revenue authorities cannot give any finding and therefore,

the parties are required to approach the civil court for

appropriate reliefs. He accordingly prays to dismiss the

appeal.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced on both sides ad also perused the

material available on record.

6. The appellants claim right and title over the land

in question under Angadi Siddarama Aradhya, who had

purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated

30.06.1932. The records which are made available to this

court by the learned Additional Government Advocate

would go to show that pursuant to the said sale deed, the

names of Angadi Siddarama Aradhya and his brother

J.S.Siddarama Aradhya were entered in the revenue

records of the land in question. The Deputy Commissioner

having referred to the said entries has observed that

pursuant to the sale, the entries in respect of the land in

question stood in the names of Angadi Siddarama Aradhya

and his brother J.S.Siddarama Aradhya till the year 1978-

79 and thereafterwards abruptly their names were

deleted. Therefore, from the records it is very clear that

after Angadi Siddarama Aradhya had purchased the land

in question under a registered sale deed dated

30.06.1932, the mutation in respect of the land, which

was the subject matter of the said sale deed, was made in

his favour. The records do not reveal as to why the said

entries were subsequently discontinued or deleted.

Respondent Nos.1 to 7 claim that there is a grant in their

favour in respect of the land in question and they are in

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land, which is

the subject matter of the grant. The respondents claim

right in respect of the land in question under the original

grantee Lingegowda, who is said to have executed a sale

deed in respect of the land in question in favour of Angadi

Siddarama Aradhya. The Deputy Commissioner vide his

order dated 31.01.2011 has directed the concerned

authorities to enter the names of the appellants in the

revenue records of the land in question on the ground that

their predecessor-in-title had purchased the land in

question under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.1932

and pursuant to the same, the revenue entries were

transferred in his name upto a certain period, but

thereafterwards without there being any reason they were

discontinued. The Deputy Commissioner has not given

any finding with regard to the title of the land or with

regard to the possession of the same. The entries in

respect of the land in question are directed to be made in

favour of the petitioners only on the strength of the

registered sale deed dated 30.06.1932 pursuant to which

the entries stood in the name of the purchaser for a

considerable period of time.

7. Under the circumstances, we are of the

considered view that the learned Single Judge was not

justified in quashing the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner and directing the appellants herein to

approach the Civil Court to get their rights adjudicated

under the registered sale deed dated 30.06.1932. The

judgment of the Full Bench of this court in the case of

Jayamma (supra), which has been relied upon by the

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7, would not be

applicable to the facts of the present case as the disputed

question of title and possession is not being decided in this

case and the entries in the revenue records of the land in

question are directed to be made on the basis of a

registered sale deed. The respondent Nos.1 to 7 claim to

be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in

question inspite of the registered sale deed dated

30.06.1932 under which the original grantee had sold a

portion of the granted land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas

in favour of Angadi Siddarama Aradhya. If that is so, it is

for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 to approach the

jurisdictional Civil Court seeking appropriate reliefs to

safeguard their possession. It is made clear that no

adjudication is made in this order with regard to the title

or possession of the respective parties. Since the

appellants herein claim right and title under Angadi

Siddarama Aradhya, who had purchased the land in

question, under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.1932

from the original grantee and in whose name the revenue

records of the land in question were changed subsequent

to the said sale deed, we are of the considered view that

the learned Single Judge of this court was not justified in

allowing the writ petition and quashing the order dated

31.01.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

Accordingly, the following order:

The writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 18th

April 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court in Writ Petition No.13384/2011, is set aside and

resultantly, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner

is restored.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-