Writ Petition No. 823 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2167 WP No. 823 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.823 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE M GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O BEEDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 110. (BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA AND: 1. THE TAHASILDHAR CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.
Legal Reasoning
2. SRI THOSHID SHARIFF S/O CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. SRI KASHIF SHARIEFF S/O CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 4. SMT. NAZIMA BEGUM W/O CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2167 WP No. 823 of 2025 5. SRI TANSEEF SHARIFF S/O CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 6. WASIQ SHARIFF S/O CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 6 ARE R/O NO. 64, 6TH CROSS 1ST MAIN, NEW GURAPPANAPALYA BENGALURU - 560 029. 7. SRI M. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA BEEDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562110. 8. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR NANDI HOBLI NANDI CHICKKABALLAPUR - 562110 CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 AND R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2024 IN RRT(A) C.R. NO. 76/2023-24 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE -E; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2167 WP No. 823 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the order of respondent No.1/Tahsildar who is directed to mutate the names of private respondents 2 to 6 jointly to the petition lands. 2. The captioned petition is not maintainable on two counts. Firstly, the order of the Tahsildar cannot be challenged by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Be that it may, on closer examination of the judgment rendered in O.S.No.19/2006, it is quite interesting to note that the suit filed by the private respondents against the children of the petitioner herein in O.S.No.19/2006, seeking the relief of declaration and injunction is dismissed only on the ground that private respondents have already sold the petition lands in favour of one Sammy's Mountain Villas Limited, Bengaluru, under registered sale deed dated 24.10.2016. The trial Court has also held that petitioner's husband - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2167 WP No. 823 of 2025 namely M. Gopalappa had obtained the compromise decree in O.S.No.265/2004 by playing fraud on the Court and also on the father of private respondents 2 to 6. Therefore, the compromise decree obtained by husband of the petitioner is held to be null and void. The comprehensive suit filed by private respondents is dismissed not on the ground that they do not have a title over the property but on the ground that they have conveyed their right title in favour of Sammy's Mountain Villas Limited. This Court deems it fit to cull out para 16, which reads as under: "16. It is significant to note that, the 1 defendant has filed inconsistent written statement. In Para No.7 of his written statement the 1st defendant has pleaded that, by virtue of sale deed dated 29.10.2005 executed by defendants No.1 to 6 the defendant No.8 Lingaraju is in possession and enjoyment of suit properties. The 1 defendant got amended his written statement subsequently in the year 2017 raising inconsistent plea that, plaintiff is well aware that Gangulappa and his family members including the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties till today from the year 1995 adversely hostile and as of right and therefore they have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession. This plea - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2167 WP No. 823 of 2025 raised by the defendant in Para No.7 (a) of the written statement is quite contrary to the pleadings pleaded by the defendant No 1 in Para No.7 of the written statement with respect to possession of the suit property. Undisputedly either defendants No. 1 to 6 or defendant No.8 have challenged the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.219/1995. The judgment and decree passed in OS.No.219/1995 remains unchallenged by defendants No.1 to 8 herein. From perusal of Ex.P12 and Ex.P1 sale deed it becomes abundantly clear that, the father of defendants No.1 to 5 and others have obtained compromise decree in OS.No.265/2004 by playing fraud on the court and on the plaintiff Chand Pasha. Therefore it is to be held that, the decree has been obtained in OS.No.265/2004 by playing fraud, as such same is not binding on the plaintiff. It is to be noted that, the 1st defendant has not specifically pleaded and proved as to how the suit is barred by law of limitation. Mere bare plea that, suit is barred by limitation is not sufficient. There must be specific pleadings as to how the suit is barred by law of limitation. Hence, it is to be held that, suit is in time. The 1st defendant has not entered the witness box to substantiate his case. Therefore it is to be held that, the 1st defendant has failed to prove that, the sale transaction between LR's of plaintiff and 9th defendant is not binding on the 1 defendant. As the LR's of plaintiff with defendant No.9 have sold suit property in favour of M/s Sammy's Mountain Villas Limited, Bangalore 24.10.2016 the question of declare the plaintiffs as absolute owners in possession of the suit property does not arise. On the day when the LR's of plaintiffs have sold - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2167 WP No. 823 of 2025 suit property in favour of M/s Sammy's Mountain Villas Limited, Bangalore on 24.10.2016 have lost their right and title over the suit property. circumstances, Under such granting injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with plaintiffs possession over the suit property does not arise Therefore Issue No.3 does not survive for consideration. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 to 3 in accordingly, Issue No.4 in affirmative and Issue No.5 and Additional Issue No.1 in negative." 3. On closer examination of these findings recorded by the trial Court while dismissing the suit filed by the private respondents in O.S.No.19/2006, though the title of the private respondents is held to be proved, the trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the suit only on the ground that they have alienated the property in favour of Sammy's Mountain Villas Limited. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.1/Tahsildar does not in any way prejudice the rights of the petitioner. On the contrary, it is the subsequent purchaser namely Sammy's Mountain Villas Limited, which is seriously prejudiced by the impugned mutation certified by respondent No.1/Tahsildar. It is for the said company to challenge the mutation and not the petitioner, wherein they have - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2167 WP No. 823 of 2025 suffered an adverse finding while dismissing the suit filed by private respondents 2 to 6. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant indulgence not only on the ground that petitioner has an efficacious remedy under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, but also on the ground that the sale made by the petitioner's husband is upheld by the Court while dismissing the suit filed by private respondents in O.S.No.19/2006. Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32