Karnataka High Court
Sowbhagya Since Deceased By Lrs Sri ... vs The Deputy Commissioner on 4 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB
WA No. 48 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SOWBHAGYA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
1A. SRI RAVIKUMAR R,
S/O K RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
1B. RAMESH R. YADAV
S/O LATE K. RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT No.96/1, KAMADENU NILAYA,
KURUBARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 086
Digitally 1C. SRI GOPALKRISHNA R
signed by S/O LATE K RAMASWAMY,
AMBIKA H B AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
Location:
High Court 1D. SRI MANJUNATH R
of Karnataka S/O LATE K RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
APPELLANTS No.1A TO 1D ARE
R/AT NO 251, 4TH CROSS,
KURUBARAHALLI,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST,
BENGALURU - 560 086
1E. SMT PREMILA R
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB
WA No. 48 of 2024
HC-KAR
D/O LATE K RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO 15, 25TH A MAIN,
AGARA, HSR LAYOUT, 1ST SECTOR,
BENGALURU - 560 102
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SURESH P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 562 110
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 562 130
3. THE TAHASILDAR
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
NELAMANGALA - 562 123
4. REVENUE INSPECTOR
SOMAPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562 123
5. SMT. KEMPASIDDAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO 237, 4TH CROSS,
KURUBARAHALLI,
KURUBARAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU - 560 086
6. SMT PRAMEELA
D/O LATE K RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB
WA No. 48 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/AT NO 251, 4TH CROSS,
KURUBARAHALLI,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST,
BENGALURU - 560 086
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
b) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2023 PASSED IN WP
No-9595/2020 (KLR-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE
ABOVE MENTIONED WRIT PETITION MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.1/2024, the
same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB
HC-KAR
2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in Writ Petition No.9595/2020 (KLR-RES):
NC:2023:KHC:41272. The appellants had filed the said writ
petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 01.06.2020 in R.P.
No.185/2017 passed by respondent No.1 [Deputy Commissioner]
as well as an order dated 27.11.2017 passed by respondent No.2
[Assistant Commissioner] in RA(N) No.25/2016-17.
3. The respondent No. 5, who is the daughter of late Shri
Kemparamaiah, had preferred the said appeal under Section
136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [the KLR Act]
impugning orders of mutation in MR No.IHC 41/1985-86, IHC 3/98-
99 and MR No.1/2001-02 in respect of properties falling in Survey
Nos.93, 94/2 and 94/7, situated at Agalakuppe Village, Sompura
Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk [the subject property]. She had
challenged the mutation entries recorded in the name of late Shri
Ramaswamy and his wife Sowbhagya. The subject property had
fallen to the share of late Shri Siddaramaiah. Respondent No. 5
and late Shri Ramaswamy are both grand children of Shri
NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB
HC-KAR
Siddaramaiah. The genealogical tree of Shri Siddaramaiah's family
is reproduced below:
GENEALOGICAL TREE
SIDDARAMAIAH (LATE)
____________________
1)Kemparamaiah (Late) 2)Krishnappa (Late)
Wife Wife
Doddakrishnamma (Late) Ramakka (Late)
Kempasiddamma ____________________
(only daughter)
Ramaswamy(Late) Saroja(55 Years)
Wife (Daughter)
Sowbhagya (60 Years)
4. It was the appellants' case that after the demise of late Shri
Siddaramaiah, his sons Kemparamaiah and Krishnappa had
divided the subject properties. In terms of the partition effected by
them, the properties in Survey No.93, measuring 6 acres 27
guntas; in Survey No.94/2 measuring 1 acre and 35 guntas and in
Survey No. 94/7 measuring 2 acres and 36 guntas had fallen to the
share of Kemparamaiah. Respondent No.5 claimed that she being
the only surviving heir of Kemperamaiah, was entitled to succeed
to his share.
NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB
HC-KAR
5. It was the appellants' case that Kemparamaiah and
Krishnappa had entered into an oral arrangement/partition and late
Shri Kemparamaiah had agreed to relinquish his entire rights in
favour of Shri Krishnappa. The appellant claimed rights in respect
of the subject properties as legal heirs of Shri Ramaswamy (son of
Shri Krishanappa). The subject properties were mutated in the
name of Shri Ramaswamy as the heir legatee of late Shri
Krishanappa.
6. Respondent No.2 found that there was no evidence of any
oral partition between Shri Kemparamaiah and his brother.
Accordingly, the concerned authority concluded that the mutation
entries in favour of the son of Shri Krishnappa were without any
basis. The wife and daughter of Ramaswamy had filed a revision
petition bearing Revision Petition No.185/2017 before the first
respondent. However, the same was dismissed on the ground that
they had not produced any document to show that Late Shri
Kemparamaiah had released the lands in question in favour of Shri
Krishnappa. The relevant extract to the said order is set out below.
" This is a case where in the land in question
belongs to one Siddaramaiah who secured right
over the properties as per registered partition
NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB
HC-KAR
dated 02-06-1946, vide document No. 2770/1945-
46. The said Siddaramaiah had two sons elder
named Kemparamaiah and the younger named
Krishnappa. The petitioner contends that long back
there was a partition between Kamaramaiah and
Krishnappa, where in the Kemparamaiah has
released the above said properties in favour of
Krishnappa. But the petitioner has not produced
any (document to show that Kemparamaiah has
released the lands in question to Krishnappa.
It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that after
the demise of Kemparamaiah, Krishnappa and his
son Ramaswamy got the lands mutated in to their
name vide IHC 41/1985-86, IHC 3/1998-99 and
MR 01/2001-02. Further, after the demise of
Krishnappa his son Ramaswamy succeeded to the
lands in question.
Admittedly the 3rd Respondent being the daughter
of Kemparamaiah filed a Revenue appeal before
the 1st respondent. The petitioner contends that the
said appeal has been filed by the 3rd respondent
after a lapse of 35 years claiming that the lands in
question are fallen to the share of Kemparamaiah
as per the partition deed dated 02.06.1946, and
the 1st respondent has wrongly allowed the appeal
filed by the 3rd respondent. Hence, prayed to set
aside the impugned order passed by the 1st
respondent in RA (N) 25/2016-17.
xxxxxxx
I have gone through the contentions put forth by
both the parties. The petitioners are admitting that
the land in question initially fallen to the share of
Kemparamaiah and 3rd respondent is the daughter
of said Kemparamaiah, but petitioners contend that
the said Kemparamaiah had released the lands in
question to the 1st petitioner Krishnappa
NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB
HC-KAR
subsequently 1st petitioner's husband and father of
the 2nd petitioner Ramaswamy had inherited the
land in question. But the petitioners have not
produced any document to show that the lands in
question were allotted to Krishnappa by
Kemparamaiah. This apart, the 1st petitioner
Soubhagya has also filed a suit before the Senior
Civil judge and JMFC, Nelamangala for the relief of
declaration and injunction against the 3rd
respondent with respect to the lands in question.
The said suit is still pending for adjudication before
the civil court.
The petitioners are stating that the Krishnappa has
secured right over the lands in question as per the
oral partition from Kemparamaiah. Revenue
authorities are not empowered to decide on the
oral partition matters, such powers always vest
with the civil courts. On the other hand, the 1st
petitioner has already stepped into the civil court
for the declaration of the title of the lands in
question. When the facts stood so, I found no
reason to allow the Revision Petition filed by the
Petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, I pass following order."
7. The appellants had preferred a writ petition which was
dismissed in terms of the impugned order. There is no document
evidencing that Shri Kemparamaiah had relinquished any part of
the subject land in favour of Krishnappa.
8. In view of the above, the finding that the mutation entries in
question had been effected without any basis cannot be faulted.
NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB
HC-KAR
9. The appeal is unmerited and is, accordingly, dismissed. The
pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
YKL
CT-SG
