Shri. Manjappa Alias Manjunath S/O ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Haveri on 12 February, 2025

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri. Manjappa Alias Manjunath S/O ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Haveri on 12 February, 2025

SMT. VIDYAVATI M. KOTTURASHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4-R6; SRI. SANGAMESH GHULAPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12-06-2024 IN BEARING RTS RA CR NO. 96/2023-24, PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-G; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02-01-2024 IN BEARING IN RTS AP NO. 127/2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RESTORE THE MR NO.H-619/2023-24 IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER TO THE LAND IN DISPUTE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -3-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 CAV ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12-06-2024 in bearing RTS RA CR No.96/2023-24, passed by the 1st respondent, vide Annexure-G;

b) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 02-01-2024 in bearing in RTS AP No.127/2023 passed by the 2nd respondent, vide Annexure-D and consequently to direct the respondent no.3 to restore the MR No.H-

619/2023-24 in the name of the petitioner to the land in dispute.

c) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the case are;

2.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the property bearing Survey No.830/1 measuring 05 acres 30 guntas. A suit in O.S.No.184/1996 having been filed by one Basappa Channappa Koppad against the adoptive mother of the petitioner, seeking for -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 a declaration that the Will allegedly executed by Basappa Koppad was a fraudulently created one.

2.2. The Trial Court dismissed the suit imposing costs, vide its judgment and decree dated 05.09.2000 following which a Regular Appeal in R.A.No.44/2000 came to be filed, the Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur, reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 03.01.2007. Challenging which, a second appeal in RSA No.803/2007 came to be filed. This Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.184/1996, thereby dismissing the suit. 2.3. During the pendency of the second appeal, the said Channavva, adoptive mother of the petitioner expired, and as such, the petitioner -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 made an application for entering his name into the revenue records by causing a mutational entry on the basis of inheritance, in furtherance of which, M.R.No.619/2023-24 came to be entered on 03.06.2023. 2.4. Alleging that Channavva had executed a sale deed on 13.06.2011 in favour of one Ganeshappa Koppad, respondents No.4 to 6 filed an appeal in RTS AP No.127/2023-24 and sought for setting aside the MR No.619/2023-

24. 2.5. The second respondents' Assistant Commissioner, vide his order dated 02.01.2024, allowed the said appeal and directed the third respondent Tahasildar, to delete the name of the petitioner and substitute the name of respondents No.4 to 6 on the basis of the sale deed dated 13.06.2011.

-6-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 2.6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the first respondent Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the said Revision Petition.

2.7. It is challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Sri. B.C. Sheetaram Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that; 3.1. The entry in MR No.619/2023-24 having been made by the Tahasildar, it was for respondents No.4 to 6 to have approached the Tahasildar for necessary relief and to not file an appeal in terms of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('the KLR Act', for short).

3.2. The entry having been made on 03.06.2023, the question of respondents No.4 to 6 claiming that entries have not been made in -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 furtherance of a sale deed dated 13.06.2011 is completely unsustainable.

3.3. The respondents No.4 to 6, not having caused any entry in the revenue records in pursuance of the alleged sale deed for a period of more than 12 years, could not have approached the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner, challenging the entry made in favor of the petitioner.

3.4. He submits that there is no dispute as regards the petitioner being the adopted son of Channavva. The petitioner having succeeded to her estate, his name came to be entered into the revenue records on the basis of inheritance in terms of MR No.619/2023-24 and no fault can be found with such entry and as such the Assistant Commissioner could not have caused deletion of MR No.619/2023-24, -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 nor could the Deputy Commissioner confirm the same.

3.5. That respondents No.4 to 6 cannot be termed to be aggrieved parties by entry of MR No.619/2023-24. The said mutation register entry has been made only to recognize the petitioner to be a legal heir of Channavva, and his inheritance rights having been entered into, respondents No.4 to 6 not being parties to the application and proceedings before the Tahasildar, they could not file an appeal challenging the order of the Tahasildar. They ought to have approached the Tahasildar seeking entry of their names in the revenue records. Not having done so, they could not seek for deletion of the name of the petitioner and substitution of their names in the manner as done, more particularly, after 12 years of the alleged sale deed.

-9-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 3.6. That the sale deed itself is disputed and the sale deed does not confer any right on respondents No.4 to 6. The acceptance of the sale deed to convey right, title and interest in the property is contrary to the requirement under Section 128 of the KLR Act.

3.7. The second respondent - Assistant Commissioner could not have decided the rights of the parties by accepting respondents No.4 to 6 to be the owners of the property. In that view of the matter, the Assistant Commissioner has virtually decided the title of the parties which could not have been so done.

3.8. Sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the KLR Act does not provide for such an appeal by a person who is not a party to the proceedings before the Tahasildar, which aspects have not been considered by the Assistant

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 Commissioner as also by the Deputy Commissioner, and therefore, the reliefs which have been sought for are required to be granted.

4. Smt. Vidyavati M. Kotturshettar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.4 to 6, submits that;

4.1. The adoptive mother of the petitioner having sold the property to one Ganeshappa Koppad under a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2011, the right, title and interest of the late of Smt.Channavva had been transferred during her lifetime to the said Mr. Ganeshappa Koppad. In that view of the matter, there is no subsisting right, title and interest of Channavva in the subject property, for the petitioner to succeed to by way of inheritance. 4.2. The inheritance proceedings itself are completely mala fide. The entry made by the

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 Tahasildar not being in accordance with law, respondents No.4 to 6 could not have once again approached the Tahasildar and as such had filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Sub-section (4) of Section 136 of the KLR Act.

4.3. The respondents No.4 to 6 are aggrieved parties, inasmuch as though respondents No.4 to 6 are the owners of the property, the property having been sold under a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2011, the petitioner had behind the backs of respondents No.4 to 6, got an entry made in the revenue records, which was contrary to the registered sale deed.

4.4. The petitioner, being fully knowledgeable about the said sale deed, having signed the same as a witness, has abused the process of law and approached the Tahasildar to get an entry of his name made in the revenue records

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 on the basis of inheritance, which could not have been so done.

4.5. As such, the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have rightly considered the matter in issue and passed requisite orders. The present petition is not maintainable and is thus required to be dismissed.

5. Heard Sri. B.C. Sheetaram Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M.M. Khannur, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3, Smt. Vidyavati M.Kotturshettar, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 6 and Sri. Sangamesh Ghulappanavar, learned counsel for respondent No.7. Perused the papers.

6. The facts which are not in dispute are that;

6.1. Smt. Channavva Koppad was the owner of the subject property. The petitioner claims to have succeeded to the property on the basis of

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 inheritance. Respondents No.4 to 6 claim to have succeeded to the property under Sri. Ganeshappa Koppad, who was the purchaser of the property from Smt. Channavva under the registered sale deed dated 13.06.2011. 6.2. The entry made in favor of the petitioner in MR No.619/2023-24 was so done on 03.06.2023 Channavva having expired much earlier. 6.3. MR No.619/2023-24 was made on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner that he had succeeded to the estate of Channavva. It is challenging this that RTS appeal No.127/2023-24 had been filed by respondents No.4 to 6, which came to be allowed. The revision petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.

7. The contention of Sri. B. C. Sheetaramrao, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly is that respondents No.4 to 6 cannot be said to be aggrieved parties

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 since they were not parties to the proceedings in MR No.619/2023-24 and as such, could not have filed an appeal. The aspect of being aggrieved party or not would have to be taken into consideration, not by considering whether a person is a party to a proceeding, but whether the order passed in those proceedings would cause any harm or injury to such persons who were not parties.

8. In the present case, the claim of respondents No.4 to 6 is that Channavva, during her lifetime, had executed a sale deed of the subject property in favor of Ganeshappa Koppad, who is the husband of Respondent No.4 and father of respondents No.5 and

9. Thus, the property being one and the same, both the parties claiming right, title and interest in the said property, it cannot be said that respondents No.4 to 6 are not aggrieved by any orders. In fact, if a revenue entry is made in respect of the property

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 belonging to them in the name of anyone else, they necessarily would be aggrieved parties/persons.

10. The second submission of Sri. B.C. Sheetaramrao, learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the entry made in favour of the petitioner is an innocuous one inasmuch as his name has been entered into in the revenue records on the basis of inheritance. There being no dispute about the petitioner being the adoptive son of Channavva, such an entry made is proper and correct and cannot be disputed by the respondents.

11. Though it may not be disputed that the petitioner is the adoptive son of Channavva, what is an issue in the present matter is the entry made in the revenue records of a particular property. It is trite law that a person can succeed to a property which is owned by the predecessor of such person. If the person had disposed the property during his or her lifetime, the question of any property being available for

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 succession would not arise. In the present case, Channavva having executed a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2011, selling the subject property during her lifetime, at the time of her expiry, the said property was not available for the petitioner to succeed to. A registered sale deed having been executed, of which admittedly the petitioner is a signatory as a witness, thereby categorically establishing that the petitioner was aware of the said sale deed. he conduct on part of the petitioner in seeking for an entry to be made in his name on the basis of succession, is completely misconceived, mala fide, illegal and abuse of the process of law.

12. The petitioner therefore could not have claimed any right, title or interest in the property which has already being sold by Channavva during her lifetime on the basis of him being the adopted son. The sale deed having attained finality and the same not having been challenged, the petitioner could not

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 have sought for and got the entry of his name in the mutation register.

13. The last contention of Sri. B.C. Siddhartha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the decision of this Court in S. Shivanna Vs. The Special Tahsildar and Ors.1 more particularly, para 6 and 19, which are extracted below for easy reference, is that, the Assistant Commissioner could not have decided the title in the manner as done by holding the respondents No.4 to 6 are the owners of the property:

6. Submission of Sri C.B. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Tahsildar could not have acted under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act on the application filed by the fourth respondent; that there was no cause of action in favour of the fourth respondent based on which the Tahsildar could have been moved for action under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act; that the Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application Under Section 128 of the Act, when there was no acquisition of rights by the fourth respondent vis-a-vis the petitioner subsequent to the entry having been shown in the name of the petitioner in the year 1965; that the name of the fourth respondent or the names of his ancestors or predecessors-in-title had never been 1 W.P.No.1640 of 2003 dated 24.01.2005

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 shown in the revenue records and if so for a new entry as against the entry which was already there in favour of the petitioner, unless it is backed by an acquisition of rights which alone confers the jurisdiction by any law and the order is not sustainable; that the affirmation orders of the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner suffer from the very same lacuna of lack of jurisdiction and therefore the impugned orders are to be quashed.

19. In fact even in respect of immovable properties, a period of 12 years is sufficient even for a stranger to perfect his title, and if so, it is not the business of Revenue Authorities to act under a sale deed of the year 1924 for recognising a right under this sale deed of the year 1924 in the year 2001. Definitely much water has flown under the bridge in between these years. It is for this reason I am holding that the order passed by the Tahsildar is not legal and without jurisdiction and it calls for interference. The affirmation orders suffer the same defect.

14. The decision in Shivanna's case was delivered not on the basis of any registered sale deed, but on the basis of unregistered documents on which basis entries were made in the revenue records.

15. Sri. B. C. Sheetaramarao, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in C. N. Nagendra Singh Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 District and Others2, more particularly para 9 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

9. Considering Rule 43, when a person claims title to a property under a Will for the purpose of getting a mutation entry in the revenue records before any such entry is made the Revenue Court should prima facie be satisfied that the said document is genuine and valid even in the absence of any dispute as the said Will comes in the way of natural succession. By virtue of Section 128 when the owner of the land dies, the title to the said property passes on to the legal heir by succession or survivorship or inheritance and the property vests with such a legal heir without there being any document and purely based on the relationship of the deceased with the legal heir. A Will can come into operation only after the death of the executant. If a Will is set up to deprive, a legal heir who had acquired title to the property either by succession, survivorship or inheritance, the person claiming under the Will has to show better title. If the Will is disputed strict proof of Will as required under Sections 63 and 64 of the Succession Act is to be provided. When the Revenue Court is prevented from recording the statements of the parties and the depositions, the question of establishing the genuineness of the Will for any purpose whatsoever before the Revenue Court in an enquiry would not arise.

Under these circumstances, the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to go into the genuineness or validity of the Will or to the question of title in respect of the land in dispute. The decision of the Revenue Court has to be necessarily based on the undisputed facts. The Revenue Court cannot go into the disputed questions of relationship, status of the parties' title to the property or genuineness or otherwise of a document or challenge to the 2 ILR 2002 KAR 2750

- 20 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 documents on the ground of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or mistake. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of Rule 43 in the case of a Will.

16. Relying upon the aforesaid extracted para, he submits that the revenue court would have no jurisdiction to go into the genuineness or validity of the Will or the question of title in respect of the land in dispute.

17. There cannot be any dispute with the said finding or the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Court. What was appreciated in Nagendra Singh's case was whether the revenue authorities could decide on the validity or otherwise of a Will when the Will was disputed.

18. That decision would not apply to the present case, which deals with a registered sale deed of which the petitioner himself is a witness. Hence, what has been done by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner is accepting the sale deed and not deciding on the title or a dispute between the

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024 parties. As such, the decision in Nagendra Singh's case would also not be applicable to the present case.

19. The appreciation of unregistered documents is completely different from the appreciation of a registered sale deed. In the present case, there being a registered sale deed executed on 13.06.2011, of which the petitioner is also a signatory as a witness, the said sale deed not being challenged in any proceedings, it is the said sale deed which would prevail over any other claim. The fact remains that, a registered sale deed is on record.

20. The petitioner claimed only a right on account of succession over a property by inheritance, which was sold by his adoptive mother during her lifetime. The said sale deed not having been challenged, as observed above, the petitioner could not have sought for an entry of his name on the basis of inheritance.

- 22 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2824 WP No. 103761 of 2024

21. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have taken into account the registered sale deed and as such held that the entry made in the name of the petitioner on the basis of succession would have to be cancelled, and the names of the persons who claim under a sale deed are required to be entered in the revenue records. There cannot be any fault found in the said finding.

22. In that view of the matter, no ground having been made out and all the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner having been rejected, The petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 108

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court