Karnataka High Court
Shri Anand Pralhad Lokapur vs Shri Vijay Venkatesh Kulkarni on 14 March, 2022
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, K.S.Hemalekha
-1-
WA No. 100103 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100103 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI ANAND PRALHAD LOKAPUR
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE
R/O. JAMKHANDI
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI VIJAY VENKATESH KULKARNI
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MOHITE GALLI, ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591304
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
JAGADISH
TR BAGALKOT
AT. BAGALKOT-587301
Digitally signed by
JAGADISH T R
Location: DHARWAD
Date: 2022.03.21
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
14:11:22 +0530
JAMKHANDI AT. JAMAKHANDI
AT. BAGALKOT-587301
4. THE TAHASILDAR
JAMKHANDI
AT. JAMAKHANDI
-2-
WA No. 100103 of 2022
AT. BAGALKOT-587301
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT V MOGALI, HCGP FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HONBLE
COURT TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 28.01.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.NO.30071/2008, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned HCGP accepts notice for respondents 2 to 4.
2. The matter is being disposed of without notice to
the private respondent, as the order impugned is not disturbed.
Accordingly, there is no necessity to hear other side before
passing the present order.
3. The appellant has called in question the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 28.1.2022 passed in WP
No.30071/2008.
4. It is submitted that the appellant has been able to
lay hands on the registered gift deed made in favour of
respondent No.1 as per Document No.2485 registered on
WA No. 100103 of 2022
24.9.1999, whereby the gift deed is executed by Smt.
Bharatibai Prahladacharya in favour of the appellant herein with
respect to the extent of 7 acres, which is western portion of 15
acres. The said document is a registered document.
5. Reliance is also placed on Document No.2486
registered on 24.9.1999 with respect to the extent of 8 acres 6
guntas, which is western portion of 15 acres 6 guntas and it is
again executed by the same donor in favour of the appellant.
It is pointed out that this is also a registered gift deed. It is
submitted that by virtue of these registered instruments,
property to the extent of 15 acres 6 guntas came to be gifted in
favour of the appellant. Accordingly, it is submitted that this
aspect of the matter, despite due diligence, could not be placed
before the learned Single Judge and in the light of the said
documents being registered documents, same must be taken
note of.
6. It is also submitted that the observation of the
learned Single Judge at para-8 of the impugned order that Smt.
Bharatibai did not dispute the lawful execution of the gift deed
during her life time is also contrary to the record and would
amount to apparent error insofar as the appellant had produced
WA No. 100103 of 2022
before the learned Single Judge the order dated 27.8.1999
passed by Tahsildar, Jamkhandi at Annexure-C.
7. Attention is drawn to the observation made at para-
2 of the said order, which reads as under:
ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥À¸
æ ÁÛ¦¹zÀAvÉ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃn¸ÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ
ºÁdgÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è EzÀjAzÁ ¸Àzj
À ÃAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À ZÀªÀP²
À AiÀÄ°è D¸ÀQ¬
Û Ä¯Áè
C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀz
Û .É PÁgÀt ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À zÀ°è ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉU¼
À ÄÀ
²æêÀÄw: ¨sÁgÀw¨Á¬Ä ¯ÉÆÃPÁ¥ÀÆgÀ EªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉU¼
À £
À ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV
zÁªÁzÀ d«Ää£À ªÀÄÆ® ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ fêÀAvÀ«zÀÝgÀÆ, vÁªÀÇ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ
¨sQÀ ¸À ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D£ÀAzÀ ¥À¯
æ ÁízÀ (zÀvÀPÛ À ªÀÄUÀ)
CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. zÁªÁzÀ d«Ää£À°è E§âgÀ ºÉ¸g
À ÄÀ
zÁR¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, vÁªÀÇ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ¥ÀA¨sÁgÉ ªÀiÁr¯Áè CAvÁ w½¹zÁÝg.É
Accordingly, it is submitted that the observation of the
learned Single Judge is an apparent error.
8. Taking note of the submission made and additional
evidence in the form of registered gift deed and also noticing
that the said aspect was not placed before the learned Single
Judge and in the light of contention raised, it may be
appropriate to reserve liberty to the appellant to move the
learned Single Judge by way of appropriate proceedings
including review as may be permissible under law. As the
nature of the contentions raised are matters to be kept open to
WA No. 100103 of 2022
be raised before the learned Single Judge, it would not be
appropriate for this Court to consider the same in this appeal.
Accordingly, we find it appropriate to dispose of this writ
appeal, while reserving liberty to the appellant to place the
matter by way of additional documents before the learned
Single Judge and also raise the other grounds by way of
appropriate proceedings including review as is permissible
under law before the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ
appeal is disposed of. Contentions of the appellant are kept
open.
9. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
