Smt Gangamma W/O Mariyappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 5 November, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Gangamma W/O Mariyappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 5 November, 2008

Bench: K.L.Manjunath

IN was HIGK couaw or KARNAmAKA.AE BANGLoRﬁ° 

HATED THIS THE 5"*nmx up xovnnsn, 25ca  f; .

BEFORE

THE EOH'BLE MR. JGSTICE 13.L,$aN3uﬁAm3=;, _ 

WRIT PETITION' No.15350'/.2oo5'<:C:;R--RR!$I;i§) Q'  

BE'I"W%N :

1 SMT GANGAMMA W/O MARxYA£EA'v_. a
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS; -'gfaj "»K»"
occ: AsIcuLTuR:sTVW ', T
EENAKARAHALL3', ;" ", _«,,_ ,
HOHNALI Tanbxg.'   3*" *__=*-W~

9AvAN¢ER§"BisT7 "

2 sax MhL£APRA*S!QnMARiEAPPA
Asmn AEou*55'2EARs;}
OCC:.AﬂRICULTURiST "

_V BEN§$AHAHALLz_

a "=HcﬁmA2:.maLUK

' .9A33NgEE£_E1sT

3 sum R§mHnAMa§.W/0 SHIVAPRA
» AG$ﬁ ABOG$@55 yzaas,

_ accé ASRIQULTURIST
.,',sEnAKAnAaALL1

",H9H§AL: TALUK

"Vﬁkyﬁﬁeﬁkx 913$

"-§  Saw BANBAMM RIO MURIGESHAPRA

_ "AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

' occ: AGRICULTURIST
BENAKAHAEALLI
HGRRALI TALUK
BA¥h£GERE BIST



5 SMT JA¥AMA.W/O MALLESHAPRA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
occ: AGRICGLTURIST

MARSA VILI.&GE
SHIMOGA TALUK

saxuoea axawaxcw V : ,;g P£TiIIOREﬁS " 

(By 81:1: 6 S  V.

1 THE DEPT? coM1ss:¢KER}7:
DANARGERE ﬂX$TR1CT~~-"~ -*

2 'THE Asszsxénriépaﬁxézéwzﬁg "' "" "
DAVANGER3 svEf31?1s:Qﬁ ,'
BAVA§GERExBI5$n "*«

3 THE iAHsIi§§a. a *»
HcNKAL;'$Q'. T.V-
maynnsaas 9:5? *'

4 saw JEXAMAJKETHRI
-*. W13 Lawn HALESE&EPA Kgrnanx
_ 'gggb §3cuT,4o YEARS
';'c:_Ag§xcuLrUR1sT
*§HA$Nhh;L:jv1LLAGE
TQ.HoNNAL:,$AHANG£RE DIST

'7, 5 SM? agﬁsaanua

-F w{9 BASAYAKYAFEA
"fA§Eb.Aaouw 70 YEARS,
. occ:'AaaxcuLTUR1sw

. " CHASHAHALLI VILLAGE

 "wTQ.HGRﬁALI
'r BARANG£E DI$T

5 SR1 EATHI RAJA
W/D BASVANYAPEA
Aﬁﬁﬂ A300? 42 YEARS,



Caxnmissioner _, Davangere sub-wnivnﬁaiicgzg  'V    111' 1 '

R.A. R0 . as/zoo-was dt.29. 1 .2004 "   V'

Cozm3.'ss:Loner has cancelled. th¢.'-434'  "J ﬁe 

rm No.10:9I3-91. and  i."-.12:  i:¢i 

change the revenue ::e¢cor§;i:.=.«- " '"na1aeV§ oi' the
Deputy Cmmissionezz,  Annexure-~H
at:.2o"' Janu3ryvZCi{1__t'§ 

2. The     case are as
hereun%r L   » A. .  .,

On   " the Tahsildar, Honnali
in RR.l2>is.A6";-'8 5=sV8;7  an order to make a
jgzgnt  uinwn'  of 4"" respcndent Jayarnma

I{>e_1;heVgrj._V, .,.,A:A"';F;x1eshppa Kethari, K.Basavanya.ppa,

 s_/o "  and hiariyappa 3/o Basappa.

 $2,:-.;bsec§t_ah:é3r;ti3"V  the 4"' respondent filecl. a $1.;1t. in

, .:V€ f. .€-ii-;,143A:.:'é;---Z},A3S3VV;"v'9§. before the Civil Judge, (Jr.I}n.} and Honnali clairuing partition and sepaxate poﬁééasion of her share in all the joint family " ~1;,ropert:;es. The suit filed by the 4"' respondent came to be dismissed on the grcmncl there was @/ already a partiticn and that the enjoying the properties separately ., the suit: filed by the 4""

dismissed. Aggrieved by; the rﬁf rig:- ~_ suit, she filed an appeal £_Sr.Dn._} Honnali in appeal aim calm to be as per Annexure~---E. the aypeal _, relying 11$-'On flivii Court, she apyraaahedi __ -fbr change. crf Jftervenue recoras m 'ne::4 Talwildar by his order c11:'.v.24.as". .;2.'o:3L.4 a;s.. wAnnexure--§' rejecdgfd the #';.;::und that there gfwalready an Being aggzieved by the same, 4"' "'res;:$¢n<§ent filed an appeal before the Asst. sggonér , Davange.-re Sub-"Division in RA V2'Cu'.i4~---05. The Asst. Conmzissioner, Davangera Vszibwniﬁision allowed the apgeal relaying upon the and ﬁczree passed in 0.S.'Nc:.189/91 and Rh 139.101/O2. Challenging the saxna, a. ravzision was 8/ filed. by the petitioners which zcexzisian _ dismissed by the Deputy Co1ttn.;i..5.sione_r,,...,_'4ﬁ.a.vz§§1cgerté'. -. Challenging these orders , the filed. ' '. ' ! . V

3.. The main c:<;~1'xt:ant:;c>:°z"v'};.*'::f'.fV'VV'!:_2fV:e Vieﬂgﬁéﬁtvfgcounsel far the petitioners 1' ..V§:;§:ii«x*t 1%." 'ﬁat the Asst. Cemnissioger a;;'_.=, the Deputy Cam-assiﬂner :j:5V"F':'v\'VV-F-6-'.".'1'i:;3'.ou:5 error in setting as:;.<:1é_ ¢i:=:La:£A'~'i,'%_p;;ssﬁ;. by the Tahsildax. Ae<:arding =..A to 'Tahsima-r had rightly rejected thfe, é:'.1..,ai;:::; n_f rewndent-4 based on the pva$.%.=;«:a1c1____p§g him on an early occasion as pézzf __ when an earlier: order as ye:

becme final, the Asst, ',._Cc:;c;m1ss§;cr;1ié:;* $houl<:1 net have interfered with the .: --.:}.~:1+;.a'g;ag*e'"---.;;»f maztatzmn in respect of the disputed pin the cirzzuzastances, he request the Court "V ' ~. t:é': ;ii'3.ow the petition.

4, The learnad counsel far the 4"' respondent contends that after the ordems were passed. by the 1'?

Tahsildar as per Annexnre»-B, the 4"' filed. a suit: for partition of her Shara on the defence raised by the d§efeI §¢;iants': a'-.:fi:2§5;g;g:' was given by the trial cqutjt $i:;:_'§f.:;ng _.!:ir*x;a.if; 2 was no joint £a.m:;.:Ly and mru.-;..1.y grogerties had, been 1. thé suit mm to be ¢1sm.§§§e:§VV Judgment was 33.59 1:estie§2'L'A:1:§};s_y:3._g-,_ge;,s':.";%'ﬁ" by filing an appeal Eionnali, which agzayeal. 33.53;: Therefore, he cacntends t1;i3t baﬁeﬁi findings of the Civil Ccrgfurt, ..V_V'Vi:*éss1ée3n.ider;t had requested the T'é.1';silria:r. Ti-:r:>':i;.,'tgali to change the revenue entries. .a,'~T'__pé1rf§y, _ zéfgzﬁrcached the revenue: authcrrities ggsed oi: the -finding eat" a. Civil cousst, it was far _ ::e::jen13'e.. authcrities to givae effeet t0 the of the Civil Court. merafore, he that the Asrst. Co:m_1".s;52.¢:>n¢.==:r as wall as Deputy Cazraﬁssiener wa$ justified tin setting aaide the crcier gassed by the Tatxsilciar and W directing the Tahsildar to enter the 4"' responciant in respect: of tggg lama"

her. Therefore, he requests the yetitian. V % V " V '

5. having heard the féif jiaarties, this Court has nc:vt3i.vc';Aea;$§_At'1%1:ze andiseputed facts in this case; Vv : . V V. That. as Téimilrhr an an earlier revenue entries as if :i.£:: _' prcpexty. But the contentiorzksaf Prozfiﬁrties has been n§gatw.§d~. by court in a. suit filed. by . "" H fa: Partition and seﬁaxate p::>5S'='s:-*.:_s*;=L'L.;i.§:zi'v _ The suit cam to be dimaissed 33:5:-._ the""'--grc:iin:i"" that there was already a partition %«:h;'Lc:2i"' Ju-wment has been ecznfirzwd by the {hurt alsm. The czrdaer gassed by the' $5149.21-TV Judge (Sr.Dn..}-, Honnalri. in RA 30.101102 has been questicned by any af the ggartiezs. Therefcre, the finding' of the Civil Judge, EV (Jr.Dn.}, Hcxnnali and the Juégment paaseci by 't:';he Civil Judga, (Sz:..Dn.} , Hvonnali have and if 3'.r1a.1. .

5. If the W' respondent hfaéi Tahsildar for change of revenue "eIAit.z::£¢es .:§:;a'§s£:d. 'V the f indings of the Civil an<;1 '.s3Lic:E27 zélagqéiest had not been QGI1Ei§E2i'é.f.1 : TahsilV«rViai . the Asgt. Commissioner as Deputy Cermissianer, we;re'««T:._:§1zst:i£ia~ii "~;Li':--i_"~VqQzé{sidering the ease cxf " _s;i§%;:te the finding cf the Civil C§:~izx*t' QR the revanua authoritiggﬁv. $5 thia short ground, the A' Igasﬁ to' V dismisseci.

ff~.,:é:"e$u."i.%:, the Writ Petitian is V_§a3:Li:'ies to bear their costs. sal-

Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court