Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as per the compromise decree passed by the III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge Court, Belagavi in O.S. No.150/2001 the suit property was allotted to the share of the petitioner. Thereafter parties to the compromise decree got the compromise decree registered with the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar and then petitioner submitted an application to the ADLR City Survey, Belgavi City for certifying the entry effected in the name of the petitioner in the property register card in respect of the petition schedule property and with a further request to delete the name of the 4th respondent Bank from the encumbrance register. The ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City after hearing all the concerned parties and considering the objections filed by the 5th respondent, by order Annexure-A allowed the application submitted by the petitioner and certified the entry effected in the property register card in the name of the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule property and declined to certify the entry effected in the property register card on 28.03.2002 from the encumbrance register record. As such the order passed by The ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City at Annexure-B is in accordance with the compromise decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.no.150/2001 and provisions of the Land Revenue Act and Rules thereto.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 5th respondent being 1st defendant in O.S.No. 150/2001 and parties to the compromise decree passed by the IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) & CJM., Court at Belagavi in the said suit could not have objected for the petition filed by the petitioner before the ADLR City Survey, Belgaum for certifying the entry made in the property register card in respect of the petition schedule property on the basis of the compromise decree passed in O.S.no. 150/2001.

6. Smt. Veena Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 supports the orders passed by the 2nd and 1st respondents at Annexures-D and E respectively and she submits there is no illegality in the said orders warranting interference of this Court and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Sri. M.G.Naganuri, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.4 submits property originally belonged to one Anthony Alex D'souza father of the petitioner and 5th respondent. The said Anthony Alex D'souza having absolute right, title and interest over the property as evident from the revenue records gifted a portion of the property in favour of the petitioner (his Son) and the remaining portion in favour of his daughter (5th respondent) under two separate registered gift deeds of common dated 05.01.2000. Accordingly, petitioner approached the ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City requesting him to certify his name entered in the property register card. The ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City considering the registered gift deed certified the entry effected in his name and in the name of the 5th respondent in the property register card in respect of the petition schedule property. Thereafter, the 5th respondent approached 4th respondent for availing loan on the security of the property gifted in her favour by her father. The Bank satisfying with the title of the 5th respondent to the property advanced loan on the security of the property by obtaining registered equitable mortgage. Accordingly, the name of the Bank was entered in the encumbrance register. Petitioner by obtaining a compromise decree in collusion with the other members of his family approached the ADLR requesting to certify the entry effected in his name in the property register card without making the Bank as party to the said proceedings. Learned counsel submits the Bank aggrieved by the said order of The ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City at Annexure-B challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent considering the above aspects of the matter allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ADLR at Annexure-B and even Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the 1st respondent-Joint Director of Land Records as per Annexure-E. As such there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders Annexure-D and E passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively and he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent neither supports the petitioner nor the Bank.

9. It is not in dispute that the property bearing CTS No.1557 of Hindwadi, Belagavi originally belonged to Anthony Alex D'souza father of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. It is also not in dispute that his name entered in the revenue records as property was coming under the revenue jurisdiction at that time petitioner also does not dispute the execution and registration of the gift deed dated 05.01.2000 by the original owner Anthony Alex D'souza in favour of his daughter Smt. Voilet W/o. F.Rodrigues (the 5th respondent in the writ petition) in respect of a portion of the said property. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit did not seek the relief for cancellation or declaration of the said gift deed executed by the Anthony Alex D'souza in favour of the 5th respondent in the suit as null and void. However, it is a compromise decree obtained by the petitioner in O.S.No. 150/2000 on the basis of a compromise entered between the petitioner and his family members. Thereafter, the petitioner got the said compromise decree registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar and on the basis of the said registered partition deed, he approached the ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City requesting to certify the entry effected in his name in the property register card and delete the name of the Bank from the encumbrance register. The ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City without considering the above aspect of the matter and without issuing notice to the Bank allowed the petition submitted by the petitioner and ordered for certifying the entry effected in the name of the petitioner in the property register card and order for deleting the name of the Bank from the encumbrance register. The Bank aggrieved by the order passed by the ADLR City Survey, Belagavi challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent considering the illegality committed by the ADLR City Survey, Belagavi has rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ADLR City Survey, Belagavi. Therefore, first respondent was justified in dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent.