SRI. T v. INDRAMMA W
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5276 WP No. 287 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 287 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. 2. SRI. T. V. INDRAMMA W/O SADANANDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS KIRAN PANNEGAR S/O RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A, SINGONAHALLI VILLAGE OBALAPURA POST, KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMARA, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB DIVISION TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5276 WP No. 287 of 2025 4. TAHSHILDAR TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. 5. RAMAIAH S/O PUTTAMMA AGED 68 YEARS R/A SINGONAHALLI VILLAGE OBALAPURA POST, KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 106. 6. SHIVARAMAIAH AGED 66 YEARS S/O LAKSHMAMMA R/A OPP. ROYAL WINES ANTHARASANAHALLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. T.H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARICLES 226 AND 227 OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONSTITUTION OF ANNEXURE-A AND B NO.RP 55/2021 DATED 15.10.2024 AND NO. R.R.T.(A)(T)345/2016-17 DATED 22.02.2021 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioners are assailing the order of respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner wherein these authorities taking cognizance - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5276 WP No. 287 of 2025 of the sale deed obtained by mother of respondent No.5 and the gift deed executed in her favour have proceeded to set aside the mutations in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, a direction is issued to mutate the name of respondent No.5. These two orders are under challenge by the petitioners. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 3. Petitioners are asserting title over the petition properties based on registered gift deed dated 17.9.2008 followed by rectification deed. Petitioners' also assert that Lakshmamma and her sister Puttamma acquired right and title through their mother Thayamma by way of a registered gift deed. Therefore, petitioners contend that Respondent No.5 has no locus to get his name mutated to the petition lands. 4. Per contra, respondent No.5 has filed statement of objections and has placed reliance on the judgment - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5276 WP No. 287 of 2025 rendered by the civil Court in O.S.No.492/2018, which is affirmed by the appellate Court in R.A.No.117/2024. Referring to these two judgments, respondent No.5 claims that his mother's right and title over Survey No.45/6 measuring 15 guntas which is based on a registered sale deed dated 28.6.1966 and gift deed dated 28.6.1966 in respect of Sy.No.40/3 measuring 6½ guntas is given a quietus by the civil Court. Therefore, respondent No.5 contends that petitioners have no locus to challenge the orders of respondents 3 and 2/Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. 5. On closer examination of the judgment rendered in O.S.No.492/2018, this Court is of the view that petitioners claim over 15 guntas of land in Survey No.45/6 and 61/2 guntas in Survey No.40/3 is without any basis. The title of respondent No.5's mother namely Puttamma is adjudicated under additional Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S.No.492/2018 and the civil Court has exhaustively dealt with the rival claims and has answered additional - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5276 WP No. 287 of 2025 Issues 1 and 2 in the affirmative and has held that respondent No.5 has succeeded in proving that Lakshmamma through whom the petitioners are tracing right sold 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.45/6 on 28.6.1966. The findings of the civil Court in O.S.No.492/2018 on additional Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are extracted as under: "25. Addl., issue No.1 and 2: In view of the discussion on issue No.1, 2 and 4, I am of the opinion that there is a dispute of partition between plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 that means children of Lakshmamma. Further defendant No.4 has claiming his right and possession for an extent of 15 guntas in Sy.No.45/6 and 6 ½ guntas in Sy.No.40/3 by stating that Lakshmamma had executed sale deed dated 28.06.1966 and gifted dated 28.06.1966 over the Sy. No.45/6 and 40/3. Further Ex.D.17 is encumbrance certificate, in said document there mentioned about the execution of sale deed and gift deed by Lakshmamma in favour of defendant No.4 mother Puttamma pertaining to Sy.No.45/6 and 40/3 he also placed certified copy of sale deed and gift deed to substantiate his case as per Ex.D.18 and 19 and he also exhibited - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5276 WP No. 287 of 2025 Assistant Commissioner orders as per Ex.D.20 in said orders the Assistant Commissioner directed the concerned Tahasildar to effect the khata in pursuance of the gift deed and sale deed for aforesaid extent in the name of 4th defendant. 26. Further he also placed Ex.D.22 to D.24 RTCs they are standing in the name of 2nd defendant Indiramma and Ramaiah who is 4th defendant. So the evidence of D.W.2 and his written statement contents and the documents those placed before the court as per Ex.D.17 to 24 clearly indicates to the court during the lifetime of Lakshmamma, she has sold an extent of 15 guntas in Sy.No.45/6 dated 28.06.1966 in favour of 4th defendant mother Puttamma and on the same day she has executed gift deed for an extent of 6 1/2 guntas over Sy.No.40/3 dated 28.06.1966. 27. In pursuance of the said document is concerned revenue authorities have effected khata and entered in the E.C., pertaining to the transactions those have held between the plaintiff mother Lakshmamma and defendant No.4 mother Puttamma. 28. Further Asst., Commissioner, Tumakuru also directed the concerned authorities to effect khata - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5276 WP No. 287 of 2025 over the suit schedule properties in favour of 4th defendant Ramaiah in pursuance of gift deed and sale deeds. Further the said Asst.. Commissioner orders corroborated by RTCs placed by defendant No.4 as per Ex.D.23 and 24 that means, as per Ex.D.24, Sy.No.45/6 for an extent of 15 guntas standing in the name of 4th defendant and only an extent of 6½ in Sy.No.40/3 is required to effect the khata in the name of 4th defendant. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that defendant No.4 has categorically, cogently and corroboratively proved before the court that about the execution of sale deed and gift deed by Lakshmamma during her lifetime dated 28.06.1966 pertaining to Sy.No.45/6 to an extent of 15 guntas and Sy.No.40/3 to an extent of 6½ guntas as per Ex.D.18 and 19 documents and as per the recitals of said documents, the possession of said properties has been delivered in favour of defendant No.4 that is Puttamma since then till filing of the suit there is no dispossession by the plaintiff nor defendant No.1 and 2 as such I am of the opinion that 4th defendant has proved the Addl., issue No.1 and 2 as claimed in the written statement. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff with respect to said extents is not maintainable and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5276 WP No. 287 of 2025 liable to the dismissed. Hence I answered Addl., issue No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative." 6. A careful examination of the records and judicial findings substantiates that Respondent No.5 has successfully demonstrated the validity and execution of the gift deed dated 28.06.1966, wherein Lakshmamma had transferred 6½ guntas in Sy.No.40/3 in favour of the mother of Respondent No.5. This fact has been duly recognized and affirmed by the appellate Court in R.A.No.117/2024. Although the petitioners were not direct parties to the earlier suit, it is evident that the Courts have extensively examined and adjudicated upon the sale deed and the gift deed executed by Lakshmamma and Thayamma. Furthermore, it is pertinent to highlight that the previous suit was instituted by Respondent No.6, who is none other than the brother of Petitioner No.1. Given this background, Petitioner No.1, being the daughter of Lakshmamma, is precluded from asserting any ownership rights over the property that was lawfully conveyed through the registered sale deed and the gift deed, both - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5276 WP No. 287 of 2025 dated 28.06.1966. Additionally, as per the petitioners' own statements, these properties were originally acquired by Lakshmamma and Puttamma through their stepmother Thayamma. Therefore, considering that Lakshmamma had, during her lifetime, lawfully transferred 15 guntas in Survey No.45/6 and further gifted 6½ guntas in Survey No.40/3 to the mother of Respondent No.5, the petitioners lack the legal standing to challenge the mutations ordered by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. These authorities have acted in strict compliance with the procedural requirements and legal framework prescribed under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 7. The argument advanced by the petitioners' counsel that the mother of Respondent No.5 did not take steps to have her name mutated based on the registered sale deed and gift deed, and thereby forfeited her title over the property in question, is entirely misconceived and untenable. Mere delay or inaction in seeking a mutation - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5276 WP No. 287 of 2025 entry does not, in any manner, extinguish the legal title of the rightful owner when such title is backed by a registered document. The principle of ownership in law is derived from valid conveyance and not merely from revenue records, which primarily serve fiscal purposes. Accordingly, the contention that the mother of Respondent No.5 lost title due to the absence of an immediate mutation entry is without merit. Moreover, the judgment cited by the petitioners in the case of S. Shivanna .vs. Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk1 is distinguishable on facts and does not bear relevance to the present case. The legal principles enunciated therein do not support the petitioners' claims, as the factual matrix in the instant case significantly differs from that in S. Shivanna. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the petitioners' arguments and declines to accept their contentions in this regard. 1 2005 SCC Online Kar 604 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5276 WP No. 287 of 2025 8. These fresh entries are made at the instance of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner taking cognizance of the judgment rendered in O.S.No.492/2018. Therefore, this Court is of the view that petitioners' claim over these properties which were lost way back in 1966 is devoid of merits and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35