Karnataka High Court
Smt. K.S. Ramani Iyengar vs The Executive Officer on 18 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB
W.A. No.980/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.980/2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. K.S. RAMANI IYENGAR
W/O A.S. SRIHARI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT. F-BLOCK, GOPALA GOWDA EXTENSION
OPP. RAMAKRISHNA SCHOOL
SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577201
Digitally signed
by RUPA V REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
A.S. SRIHARI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O AKS IYENGAR
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT F BLOCK
GOPALA GOWDA EXTENSION
OPP. RAMAKRISHNA SCHOOL
SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH, SAGARA TALUK
SAGARA TOWN PIN-577401.
2. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ANANDAPURAM
SAGAR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577412.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB
W.A. No.980/2022
3. SRI. A.S. BHOJRAJ
S/O A.K. SUNDARAJA IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT. RAMAKRISHNA IYENGAR ROAD
ANANDAPURAM VILLAGE
SAGARA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.
4. SRI. K.S. KRISHNAPRASAD
S/O A.K. SUNDARAJA IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT. RAMAKRISHNA LODGE
1ST CROSS, DURGIGUDI
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADV., FOR R1 & R2
SRI. RAKESH B. BHAT, ADV., FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED
IN WP No.57554/2018 TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE SHALL BE
JOINT KHATA IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT
No.3 AND APPELLANT MAY FILE A SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF
HER TITLE IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE EXTENT AND
THEREAFTER RENEW HER REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF KHATA
IN RESPECT OF ENTIRE EXTENT DATED 06.06.2022. AWARD
COSTS TO THIS APPEAL & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 13.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB
W.A. No.980/2022
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of
the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the
order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.57554/2018 (LB-RES).
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal
are that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed a writ petition
challenging the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the
respondent No.1 wherein the appeal filed by the
appellant was allowed by setting aside the khata entries
made in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect
of property bearing V.P. Assessment No.2 of
Anandapuram Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District.
The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the
pleading and material on record and on considering the
rival contentions, allowed the writ petition by quashing
the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the respondent
NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB
No.1. The learned Single Judge has further directed to
continue the names of the appellant and the respondent
No.3 in the revenue records. It is further held that if the
appellant desires to get her name entered in respect of
the entire extent of land, she may file a suit for
declaration of title in respect of the entire extent and
thereafter, renew her request for transfer of khata in
respect of the entire extent and until then, the names of
both the appellant and the respondent No.3 shall be
entered jointly in respect of the property bearing V.P.
Assessment No.2 of Anandapuram Village, Sagar Taluk,
Shivamogga District. Being aggrieved, the present
appeal is filed.
3. Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for
the appellant submits that the appellant has acquired
the title to the entire extent of the property in V.P.
Assessment No.2 of Anandapuram Village, Sagar Taluk,
Shivamogga District by virtue of a sale deed dated
NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB
11.01.2013 from the Karnataka State Financial
Corporation (KSFC) as the property was purchased by
her father in a public auction. The mortgage deed
executed by the father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4
clearly indicates that the entire extent in the aforesaid
assessment number was mortgaged to the KSFC and on
default, the KSFC has auctioned the property in favour
of the appellant. It is further submitted that the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 have fraudulently created the
gift deed in the year 2015 to knock off the portion of the
property and considering this aspect, the respondent
No.1 has allowed the appeal. It is also submitted that
the name of the appellant only is required to be
continued in the revenue records till the disposal of the
pending cases between the parties. He seeks to allow
the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.Rakesh B.Bhat, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 supports the
NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB
order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the
learned Single Judge has protected the interests of both
the parties. It is submitted that the suit filed by the
appellant in O.S.No.152/2016 was reversed in
R.A.No.17/2021 and the appeal against the said
judgment is pending in RSA No.1838/2024. It is further
submitted that in view of the pendency of the appeal
before this Court, it would not be appropriate to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant, learned counsel for the respondents, perused
the material available on record and have given our
anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and
the evidence on record. The pleading and evidence on
record indicate that the appellant has acquired the right
over the property in question vide sale deed dated
11.01.2013. Admittedly, the father of the respondent
NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB
Nos.3 and 4 committed default in payment of loan to the
KSFC which resulted in the KSFC auctioning the property
mortgaged in its favour and the appellant herein is the
purchaser from the KSFC. The respondent Nos.3 and 4
are claiming the right over the remaining portion of the
property in V.P. Assessment No.2 of Anandapuram
Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District. It is the
specific case that the respondent No.4 has executed a
registered gift deed dated 01.09.2015 in favour of the
respondent No.3 and based on the said registered
instrument, they sought to continue their name in the
revenue records maintained by the respondent No.2 in
respect of the property in question.
6. It is also admitted fact that the appellant has
filed O.S.No.152/2016 seeking prayer of perpetual
injunction. The jurisdictional Civil Court has decreed the
suit by granting the relief sought by the appellant. The
Appellate Court in R.A.No.17/2021 reversed the
NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB
judgment passed in O.S.No.152/2016 and being
aggrieved by the same, the appellant is in appeal before
this Court in RSA No.1838/2024. This Court in the said
regular second appeal, granted interim order dated
30.12.2024 by admitting the appeal. The said Court
stayed the impugned judgment, directed the
respondents / defendants therein from interfering with
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property. The Court further ordered that the
appellant / plaintiff shall not remove the compound wall
already put up by the respondents / defendants and the
respondents / defendants shall not in any manner
prevent the appellant / plaintiff from accessing the
property in respect of which the compound wall has
been put up.
7. The main dispute between the appellant and
the private respondent is with regard to the extent of
ownership and their respective possession over the
NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB
property claimed by the appellant as well as the
respondent No.3 in the regular second appeal. The
appellant is claiming that he is the owner in possession
of the entire property in V.P. Assessment No.2 and the
respondent No.3 is claiming to be the owner of the
remaining land measuring 1594.28 sq. mtrs. in V.P.
Assessment No.2 of Anandapuram Village, Sagar Taluk,
Shivamogga District. The learned Single Judge,
considering the rival submissions and taking note of the
pendency of the proceedings before the Civil Court, has
come to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to
direct the Authority to enter the names of the appellant
and the respondent No.3 as the joint owners of the
property in question. We are of the considered view
that the appellant and the respondent No.3 are required
to establish their title and possession over the lands
they claim based on the sale deed and gift deed
respectively, either in the pending regular second appeal
or in the appropriate proceedings and till such a right is
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7249-DB
adjudicated and decided on merits, it would be
appropriate to continue both the names of the appellant
as well as the respondent No.3 in the revenue records
maintained by the respondent No.2 in respect of the
land in question. We do not find any error or infirmity in
the finding of the learned Single Judge in directing the
authorities to continue the names of both the parties in
the revenue records. We make it clear that the
observations made by the learned Single Judge and this
Court are only to decide the present lis. With the
aforesaid directions and observations, the writ appeal is
disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
