Judgment · High Court

SRI BR. BHASKAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, S/OLATE RAMAIAH, R/AT. ‘BRINDAVAN’, THIMMAKKA ESTATE, RAMASWAMYPALYA, MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE 560037. (BY SRI NJ. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4) (BY. SRI HT. NARENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR El TO R3) RESPONDENTS KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SFT ASIDE This appeal is coming on for preliminary hearing this day, SREEDIIAR RAO, J, delivered the following: U. 3 JUDGMENT I.A.Noi/ 11 filed for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned.

The appellants are Respondents No.4 to 6 In the writ petition. It Is the contention of the appellants that one Kenchappa was the owner of the land in question. He mortgaged the land vide Mortgage Deed at Annexure-Ri in favour of one Dodda Pillappa who is said to be the grand father of the appellants. It is said that mortgage was conditional sale. Kenchappa did not redeem the mortgage. The mortgagee continued to be in possession. Later on, his son - Nanjundappa continued to be in possession arid he sold about four kolagas, which is said to be equivalent of about 4 acres in favour of father of respondent No.4 in this appeal. The appellants continued to be in possession of unsold portion of 1 acre of land. It Is now said that the land involved said transaction bears Sy.No.7 1 Kaggadasanapura. The appellants have made application to the Tahslldar lbr mutation of khata to the extent of I acre In I.— 4 Sy.No.7 1. The Tahsiidar issued notice for conducting survey for demarcatlng 1 acre of land as claimed by the appellants. The Respondent No.4 aggrIeved by the said action of the Tahsildar. flied revision before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the proceedings for mutation of khata and for a direction to Survey. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition vide Annexure-X. The Respondent No.4 aggrieved by the said order, has filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has found that the dispute is essentially a civil dispute with regard to title and directed the parties to work out the remedies before the Civil Court. The appellants aggrieved by the said order, have ified this writ appeal.

2. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the mortgage executed in favour of Doddapillappa by Kenchappa is a mortgage by conditional sale. The mortgage redeemed. The possession continued with Doddapillappa, later on in favour of Nanjundappa who Is the father of the appellants. The said Nanjundappa said to have sold only 4 acres of land in favour of Respondent No.4. The counsel furthcr subnuts that apart from ‘lx wortuagc cited ‘‘cc itc I iidc Anntxur Ri it hc tcai 1)32 thcit ‘, morc vik decd t’acuted on 1bO? 1941 In &nc’hapn and brothcrs in latout of anjundappa Ihc said documcnt hnrwcr vis not produced lxfon tin Rcvcnu Auth-rftlc nor belie the learned Single Judgc It is the content ion of the Respondent No 4 that his I ither had pur chased the land in juestion which was arher bearing S Nos 121 1 122 md 121 now ienunibcrcd as S No 1/i side Saic Dad 1’ted 12 12 194 nnexure A Under thc aid aic ckcd , kola,a of land haic been old by Kenci appa i Iaiotu f ather ol Rispoudcnt ‘¾) 4 t I c r c I t ( va’ niongaged 11w salt dent dated li&u7 1941 nrnv proclucc d undc i thc mtnio is a clisputtd clo ument md alsc —alit dcwu” u’ 1 1 ‘Ics. ‘jet ‘list lost aia urvt V ;‘ iiibti i. tpprecmat.- (lie identity ibe c’nuel br the appellant’ In’ to i’ h apon iht rccitals in the sak dttd of faUitr ol Recpondent No I side Aniwxure- wherein h’ the east. the propertt dencnbed as the property one purchased by Yernalur Nanjundappa who in turn sold in lavour of purchaser under Annexuie A m other words. it would mean thi proptnv ol the iunhasei ut Annexuic A The claim ol ilic appellants (ci seek mwation of enin of 1 aere (4 land in Sy No 1 in the. basis ci tte dowments fr)t’i ed doc lpptdl to l’t trnahle one in Uit’ nit iiirtsclic don Thtre is no ‘ it. sh I ,.. — at’ I i’ iii ‘ri1L’iI% •ti’i’iVe !“tieref.n.—. 11)e r ,dt—r ‘II IIP ‘ra’ned “i 1’ ca d IA tsdi.r i—s 1 1)1 4