Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 790 (KAR)

Basappa Ningappa v. Assistant Commissioner

2000-11-28

K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2000
ORDER K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—These writ petitions filed seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 30.7.1999 at Annexure 'B' and the order of the 1st Respondent-Deputy Commissioner dated 14.9.2000 at Annexure 'C'. 2. According to the Petitioners, the lands bearing survey numbers 5/1C, 77/2, 80/1, 80/3 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas, 1 acre 35 guntas, 1 acre 31 guntas, and 2 acres 37 guntas respectively, situated in Singapur village of Shiggaon are the joint properties of the Petitioners and his uncle one Sri Channabasappa. After the demise of his uncle Channabasappa, his wife Smt. Channabasavva succeeded to the estate of her husband in the aforesaid lands. One Sri Shivashankara Basalingappa Hombaradi, who is the Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 30646 of 2000 claiming to be the Power of Attorney of Smt. Channabasavva sold her half share in the lands in favour of the 3rd Respondent and after his death, the Respondent 3(a), (f) shown as his Legal representatives have succeeded to the estate of the deceased 3rd Respondent. 3. It also reveals that, a civil suit was filed by the Petitioner against her aunt Smt. Channabasavva in O.S. No. 576 of 1994 on the file of Civil Judge Junior Division for declaration of title and possession in respect of survey Numbers 80/1 and 80/3 as exclusive properties. In the said suit, the compromise was entered into between the Petitioner here in and his aunt Smt. Channabasavva and Smt. Channabasavva gave up all her rights in respect of the aforesaid four lands, without claiming any right or title in it. 4. Even before the compromise was entered into, the sale of the extent of half share of Smt. Channabasavva in the aforesaid lands are sold in favour of the 3rd Respondent-3, who on the strength of the sale deed, made request to the Revenue Authorities for katha entries in his favour and to show his name as joint kathedar along with the Petitioner and his request came to be allowed. 5. Smt. Channabasavva has also filed the Writ Petition in Writ Petition No. 30646 of 2000 against the heirs of purchaser who are described as the legal representatives of the 3rd Respondent in the present petition and who are also the parties in Writ Petition No. 30645 of 2000. 5. Smt. Channabasavva has also filed the Writ Petition in Writ Petition No. 30646 of 2000 against the heirs of purchaser who are described as the legal representatives of the 3rd Respondent in the present petition and who are also the parties in Writ Petition No. 30645 of 2000. Smt. Channabasavva has claimed that the sale made in favour of the deceased 3rd Respondent Saannaiah Mattad is illegal and that his name cannot be shown in the revenue records in respect of the aforesaid lands. 6. In so far as the claim of the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 30465 of 2000 is concerned, they do not appear to have any locus-standi to file the petition, since by virtue of sale deed executed by the Power of Attorney of Smt. Channabasavva she has lost all the rights and interest in the properties. Even otherwise, by virtue of giving up of her rights in the compromise decree in favour of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30645 of 2000 also, she has lost all the rights and interest in the property. Therefore, Smt. Channabasavva had no right in the properties as on the date of Writ Petition No. 30465 of 2000. 7. The second Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30646 of 2000 is incidentally, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30645 of 2000. It was strenuously contended by the counsel for the Petitioner that, the property in question being the joint family property, the sale of the property even if it takes place, the purchaser has no right of joint possession and has no right to have joint katha in his name. In support of his contention, relied on the ruling of this Court rendered in the case of Basagouda Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi Sub-Division, Chikodi, District Belgaum and Others, ILR (1999) KAR 1484. The facts in the said case disclose that, the rights in joint property was sold by one of the members of the family, the purchaser made an application before the Tahsildar, who on the request of the purchaser sub-divided the lands to the extent of lands purchased by the purchaser given a separate survey numbers and after sub-division, made entries in the katha in respect of the sub divided land in favour of the purchaser. In the context of the said facts, it was held thus: So long as the partition of the family properties does not take place, what the Respondents 3 and 4 acquire in the land in question is only the undivided interest of the 2nd Respondent. Under these circumstances, it was not permissible for the Tahsildar to enter the name of Respondents 3 and 4 in respect of the land in question on the basis of the sale deed and give separate sub-numbers as has been done. 8. In the instant case, the facts stand totally on a different footing. A mere mutation of katha in the name of the purchaser by virtue of a registered sale deed is not comparable to a situation where pursuant to such transfer the division of the joint property is made by the revenue authorities by effecting survey and sub-division. The provisions of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act declare that after conveyance of title by any registered instrument, whether the purchaser notifies the transaction to the revenue authorities are not, the Sub-Registrar shall notify the transaction and the Revenue Authorities on such information have to make necessary katha entries. When the disputed question arise about the validity of the sale and right of sale of a joint family property, the Revenue authorities cannot go into the matter and adjudicate the questions relating to title. The proper forum for the parties in such a situation is to seek a remedy from the Civil Court. Legal obligation on the part of the Revenue Authorities under Section 128 of the Land Revenue Act, imposed them the duty to effect katha change pursuant to registered conveyance. By the mere fact of a change of katha in favour of a purchaser it also does not mean that, he is entitled to possession or that his possession in law is to be inferred or recognised by the Revenue Authorities. The entries in column number 9 of the Records of rights cannot have any bearing on the question of actual possession and enjoyment. 9. The questions of disputed facts of title or possession are the matters which are to be decided by the Civil Court. The entries in column number 9 of the Records of rights cannot have any bearing on the question of actual possession and enjoyment. 9. The questions of disputed facts of title or possession are the matters which are to be decided by the Civil Court. In the instant case, there is a serious dispute with regard to the title to the property, so also, the question of position is a controversial aspect, which is to be decided only by the Civil Court and the said question cannot be gone into in this proceedings. Therefore, the parties are directed to approach the Civil Court for proper remedy. Subject to the result of the Civil Suit, the katha entries made, if any have to be changed. 10. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of.