Karnataka High Court
Gurunathagouda A/F Narappagouda ... vs Goudappagouda S/O Ranganagouda ... on 6 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348
WP No. 81992 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 81992 OF 2013 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
GURUNATHAGOUDA
A/F NARAPPAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE and SERVICE
IN KSRTC, R/O. NALWADI,
TALUKA: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. G. B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOUDAPPAGOUDA
S/O. RANGANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR,
Digitally AGE: 60 YEARS,
signed by V
N BADIGER OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: R/O: NALWADI,
HIGH
COURT OF TALUKA: NAVALAGUND,
KARNATAKA, DIST: DHARWAD.
DHARWAD
BENCH,
DHARWAD 2. SHRIPADAGOUDA
S/O. RANGANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR,
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NALWADI,
TALUKA: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
3. HANUMANTHAGOUDA
S/O RANGANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348
WP No. 81992 of 2013
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NALWADI,
TALUKA: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
(ORDER DATED 05.07.2016 R5 to R8
ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R3)
4. SMT. KAMALAVVA
W/O. CHINNAPPAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NALWADI,
TALUKA: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
(ORDER DATED 03.04.2018 R5 to R9
ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R4)
5. PRAKASHGOUDA
S/O. CHINNAPPAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NALWADI,
TALUKA: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
6. MANJUNATHAGOUDA
S/O CHINNAPPAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE,
R/O: POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
DHARWAD.
7. SATISHGOUDA
S/O. CHINNAPPAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NALWADI,
TALUKA: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
8. VENKANAGOUDA
S/O. CHINNAPPAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NALWADI,
TALUKA: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348
WP No. 81992 of 2013
9. SMT. VENKAVVA
W/O. NINGARADDI HEBASUR,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: CHIKKAHANDIGOL,
TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG.
10. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD.
11. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD DIVISION,
DHARWAD.
12. REVENUE INSPECTOR
ANNIGERI,
TALUK: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R10 TO R12;
R1, R2, R5, R6, R7, R8 & R9 ARE SERVED;
R5 TO R8 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R3;
R5 TO R9 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF R4)
-------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DATED 16/07/2013 IN
NO.RTS.RA.CR-06/2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER OF
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DATED 26/04/2010 IN
NO.RTS.AP.196/2007-08 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND THE MUTATION
ENTRY EFFECTED BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, NAVALGUND, IN
M.R.NO.3/2007-08 DATED 06/07/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348
WP No. 81992 of 2013
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court this Court seeking
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash
the order of the Deputy Commissioner Dharwad,
dated 16.07.2013 in No.RTS.Ra.CR-06/2011-12 vide
Annexure-D and the order of the Assistant
Commissioner, Dharwad dated 26.04.2010 in
No.RTS.AP.196/2007-08 vide Annexure-C and the
mutation entry effected by the Revenue Inspector,
Navalgund, in M.R.No.3/2007-08 dated 06.07.2007
vide Annexure-B, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard Smt. G. B. Naik, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for
respondents No.10 to 12. Perused the materials on
record.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that, he is the
adopted son of Narappagouda Doddagoudar, and after
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348
his death, the petitioner succeeded to the property in
question. He is challenging the order produced as per
Annexure-B, dated 06.07.2007, passed by the
Revenue Inspector, effecting M.R.No.3/2007-08. He is
also challenging the orders at Annexures 'C' & 'D',
passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner respectively, confirming the mutation
entry.
4. The materials on record disclose that the respondents
have filed the suit in O.S.No.158/1989, seeking
declaration of their title and for a permanent
injunction, on the basis of the Will dated 17.07.1981,
executed by Narappagouda, who is claimed by the
petitioner as his adoptive father. It is stated that the
mother of the petitioner, i.e., the wife of
Narappagouda, filed O.S.No.190/1989, seeking
declaration of her title over the property and for
permanent injunction.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348
5. Initially, the suit filed by the respondents was decreed
in their favour, declaring that they are the owners in
possession of the property, and granting permanent
injunction, while dismissing the suit filed by the
adoptive mother of the petitioner. R.A.Nos.77/1991
and 78/1991 were filed by the adoptive mother of the
petitioner, and it is stated that both the appeals were
allowed, and the matters were remanded back to the
Trial Court, with a direction to club both the cases
together to dispose of the same in accordance with
the law. Accordingly, the Trial Court clubbed both the
cases and disposed of the same under a common
judgment, again decreeing the suit filed by the
respondents and dismissing the suit filed by the
mother of the petitioner.
6. It is stated that, even though two suits were disposed
of, only one second appeal in RSA No.349/2004, came
to be filed by the petitioner, which was also dismissed
as per the judgment dated 20.02.2017. In the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348
meantime, the Revenue Inspector effected mutation
entry on 16.07.2013, as per Annexure-B. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. The discussions held above disclose that the mutation
entry at Annexure-B was made by the Revenue
Inspector on the basis of the decree passed by the
Civil Court in the original suit. The same is not
disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On
the other hand, it is her contention that the petitioner
has preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court
challenging dismissal of RSA No.349/2004, but no
materials are placed before the Court in support of
such contention.
8. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason
to entertain the petition. Hence the petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G.UMA)
JUDGE
gab
CT:ANB
