ORDER : The petitioners have filed the petition assailing the order of Joint Commissioner (Appeal) dated 07.06.2019 whereby the katha effected to the name of the petitioners has been set aside with a consequential direction to the Assistant Revenue Officer to transfer katha of schedule ‘C’ property in the name of respondent nos.4 to 6, while considering the petition of the respondents under section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. 2. The admitted facts being that respondent nos.4 to 6 have purchased the entirety of the property which is a subject matter of dispute through the registered sale deed dated 19.03.2016. 3. On the other hand the petitioners have purchased portion of the same property measuring an extent of 13721 square feet and 6312 square feet from the same vendors through the general power of attorney holders who were the petitioners themselves through sale deeds executed on 01-03-2016 though registered on 04-05-2016. 4. The petitioners on the strength of sale deeds executed in their favour have made application before the respondent BBMP to effect Katha into their names and on the basis of such a request the respondent BBMP had effected Katha into the names of the petitioners on 02-12-2016 and 01-03-2017. 5. The said katha entry made in the name of the petitioners has been challenged by way of a petition filed under section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act contending that the petitioners had suppressed information regarding pendency of civil suits with the owner of the land and had failed to mention the settlement and withdrawal of the suit by the owner while affirming the sale deed in favour Respondents nos.4 to 6. 6. The said review petition filed before the Commissioner BBMP came to be allowed whereby the Katha effected in the names of the petitioners came to be setaside and consequently the Assistant Revenue Officer was directed to effect Katha into the name of respondent nos.4 to 6. It is that order that has been assailed in the present proceedings. 7. 6. The said review petition filed before the Commissioner BBMP came to be allowed whereby the Katha effected in the names of the petitioners came to be setaside and consequently the Assistant Revenue Officer was directed to effect Katha into the name of respondent nos.4 to 6. It is that order that has been assailed in the present proceedings. 7. The petitioners have contended that the memo filed by the landowner accepting execution of sale deed in favour of respondent nos.4 to 6 in the civil suit filed seeking specific performance, would not bind the petitioners, that the nondisclosure of pendency of the suit between the land owner, petitioners, respondent no.4 and other parties was of no relevance, that the reference in the impugned order as regards the power of attorney executed in favour of respondent nos.4 to 6 does not take note of the absence of power in the said power of attorney conferring power on the said respondents to alienate the property, that the further finding in the impugned order that the respondent nos.4 to 6 have got the sale deed executed at an earlier point of time on 19.03.2016 and the sale deed in favour of the respondents was registered only on 04.05.2016 is beyond the power conferred in an enquiry under section 114 A of the Act. It is also contended that as the katha was already effected in the name of the petitioners the contention urged in the review petition ought to have been taken note of in an appropriate manner by holding that the question as to which of the sale deeds was earlier was a matter to be decided by the civil court and the respondent nos. 4 to 6 were to have been relegated to seek for appropriate remedy before the civil court, while allowing the entry in the name of the petitioners to continue till then. 8. The respondents 4 to 6 on the other hand have contended that the entire property has been purchased through registered sale deed dated 19-03-2016 whereas the sale deed of the petitioners was registered only on 04-05-2016 though executed on 01.03.2016 and as the title and property had passed onto respondent nos.4 to 6 by registration of sale deed, the sale deed executed earlier but registered later in favour of the petitioners was void. By placing reliance on section 47 of the Registration Act and the judgement in Ghanshyam Sarda v. Sashikant Jha, Director, M/s. J. K. Jute Mills Company Limited and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 599 , it is contended that the sale deed of the petitioners would take effect only from the date of registration of the sale deed. It is contended that section 114 A of the Act provides that the Commissioner could seek to exercise the power of review where the entry was obtained by the party by resorting to fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of facts, furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete material. It is contended that the petitioners had failed to mention that O.S.No.904/2008 filed seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale as against the owner was pending as of the date of submission of application for change of Katha as well as on the date when it was ordered for effecting Katha on 2-12-2016. It was further contended that O.S.No.192/2010 filed by M/s. Shiva Distilleries Ltd against the vendors of the petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 6 was also pending as of the date of filing of the application for effecting katha. It is submitted that if these facts were brought to the notice of the BBMP authorities the Katha would not have been affected into the name of the petitioners. It is further contended that the authorities should have brought it to the notice of the vendors of Respondent nos.4 to 6, seeking for their opinion in terms of section 114 of the Act. Hence it was argued that the petitioners had not only suppressed material facts but had furnished incomplete and incorrect information to BBMP and accordingly the power under 114 A was appropriately exercised and did not require any interference. Lastly it is contended that once the respondent BBMP had set aside the entry made in favour of the petitioners there was further power vested in the Commissioner to ‘reopen the case and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit’ and accordingly after cancellation of the entry in the name of the petitioners, the authority being empowered has rightly directed making of entry into the name of respondent nos.4 to 6. 9. 9. The counsel for the respondent BBMP supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioners has not placed all material on record nor divulged all relevant information while making the application for transfer of katha. It is submitted that if the pendency of legal proceedings including the original suits was brought to the notice of the authority the decision that would have been taken as regards the application for entry of Katha would have been entirely different. It is further contended that under section 114 of the Act the notice for making entry pursuant to transfer of title is to be made even by the transferor. The counsel for the respondent BBMP further submits that the observations made in the impugned order at Para 21 regarding the validity of sale deed was superfluous ought to be ignored. 10. Heard the counsel appearing for the contesting parties as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent BBMP. 11. The respondent BBMP in exercise of the power under section 114A has cancelled the katha effected in the name of the petitioners with a further direction to effect katha into name of the respondent nos.4 to 6. 12. A perusal of the pleadings and the contentions raised by the parties would make it clear that the primary contention is that the petitioners had made an application for effecting Katha into their names on 07-05-2016 (date of application of Katha is forthcoming from Annexure‘K’). As on such date, admittedly O.S.No.904/2008 filed against the landowner seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 31-05-2004 and 14-08-2004 was still pending consideration, so also O.S.No.6192/2000 filed by M/s. Shiva Distilleries Ltd against the respondent No.4 and the petitioners seeking for specific performance of the agreement dated 18-04-1994 with respect to the same schedule property was also pending consideration. 13. The requirement for exercise of power under section 114 A of the Act is that the entry in the books of the respondent-Corporation should have been obtained by the petitioners by furnishing “incorrect or incomplete material” apart from other grounds available. In the present case it can be safely stated that the non-mentioning of the pendency of the aforementioned original suits can be construed to be an act resulting in obtaining of entry on the basis of incomplete material. In the present case it can be safely stated that the non-mentioning of the pendency of the aforementioned original suits can be construed to be an act resulting in obtaining of entry on the basis of incomplete material. The test would be as to whether if facts regarding pendency of the original suits were to be mentioned, whether the authority would still proceed to make entry in favour of the petitioners. Clearly the answer would be in the negative and that if such facts relating to pendency of case was in fact made the authority would not have made such entry. This could be gathered from a reading of Para 21 of the impugned order. 14. Though the counsel for the private respondent relies on the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Suguna Rajkumar v. Rajmal and Another reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1583 to contend that there was no ‘misrepresentation’ as contemplated under section 18 of the Indian Contract Act which requires ‘A positive assertion’, in the present case, however, the question is not merely one of misrepresentation but it could be stated to be as one of furnishing ‘incorrect or incomplete material’ as noted above and hence the exercise of power by the Commissioner BBMP does not call for interference. 15. Another point for consideration is that section 114 of the Act does require that the notice of transfer of title is to be made also by the person whose title is transferred .If the transferor himself has not made out any notice to the authority regarding such transfer, the transferor must be notified while considering an application for transfer of katha and such position finds support in the decision of this court in the case of Jayamma v. The Assistant Revenue Officer and Others reported in ILR 2009 KAR 458 (see Para 10). 16. In fact it is the duty of the transferor to bring to the notice of the authority regarding transfer of title as mandated in section 114 (1) and re emphasized in section 114 (4) of the Act, insofar as the transferor who does not give notice to the authority continues to be liable for payment of property tax assessed. 17. In fact it is the duty of the transferor to bring to the notice of the authority regarding transfer of title as mandated in section 114 (1) and re emphasized in section 114 (4) of the Act, insofar as the transferor who does not give notice to the authority continues to be liable for payment of property tax assessed. 17. Accordingly when an application has been made without transferor having endorsed such application, in the fitness of things it would be appropriate that the authority insists for NOC or issue notice to the transferor on the application for change of Katha. If in the present case the transferor was notified regarding the application for transfer of katha, the fact of pendency of the civil suits viz., O.S.No.904/2008 as well as O.S.No.6192/2010 would have been revealed, so also the details of the agreement of sale executed in favour of the petitioners as well as the respondent may also have come to light. Accordingly it is clear that the petitioners while making an application for transfer of Katha has furnished ‘incorrect or incomplete material’ on the basis of which entry came to be made in favour of the petitioners. This clearly is a ground for exercise of power under Section 114 A of the Act as has rightly been exercised by the Commissioner in the present case. 18. In fact as a matter of practice usually at the time of transfer of Katha the respondent BBMP does collect encumbrance certificate which would evidence transactions relating to title with respect to the property in issue, as recorded in the books of the sub registrar. If the latest encumbrance i.e., as of the date of application for Katha was enclosed with the requisite details the same would have reflected the sale dated 19-03-2016 executed in favour of the respondents nos.4 to 6. It would also have resulted in bringing to the notice of the respondent-BBMP regarding the existence of two sale deeds with respect to the same property. 19. Accordingly the order of Commissioner passed under section 114 A of the Act to the extent that Katha entry in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled requires to be upheld. It would also have resulted in bringing to the notice of the respondent-BBMP regarding the existence of two sale deeds with respect to the same property. 19. Accordingly the order of Commissioner passed under section 114 A of the Act to the extent that Katha entry in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled requires to be upheld. Insofar as the observations made in the impugned order in Para 21 as regards to the validity of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners ought to be ignored and the same would not in any way take away the effect of or disturb the finding as regards to cancellation of katha entry. 20. Once the katha entry has been cancelled, the respondent BBMP ought to have relegated the parties to work out their rights before the civil court in light of the rival claims viz., that of the petitioners that the sale deed dated 04-05-2016 would take effect from 01-03-2016 which is the date of execution of the sale deed, and the claim of the respondent nos.4 to 6 who rely upon the sale deed dated 19-03-2016. 2I. It is a settled position of law that the respondent-BBMP while considering rival contentions in proceedings for review of the entry, by the Commissioner in the course of proceedings under Section 114 of the Act, cannot adjudicate questions of title. The same principle would also be applicable even with respect to proceedings under section 114A. 22. The question as to whether the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners though registered on 04-05-2016 would take effect from 01-03-2016 which is the date on which the sale deed was executed and must be taken note of in preference to the sale deed dated 19-03-2016 executed in favour of nos.4 to 6, is a matter beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent Commissioner BBMP and ought to be decided by the civil courts. 23. In fact after exercise of power under section 114 A of review, resulting in setting aside of the entry made in favour of the petitioners, the power conferred would further extend to ‘pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit’. 24. Accordingly, once the entry was set aside the appropriate course would be to relegate the parties to work out their rights before the civil court. 25. 24. Accordingly, once the entry was set aside the appropriate course would be to relegate the parties to work out their rights before the civil court. 25. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside in part insofar as it relates to the direction that Katha entry be made in the name of respondent No. 4 to 6, the only other consequential direction is that parties are at liberty to assert their rights before the civil court till which time the Katha entry would continue to stand in the name of the vendors of petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 to 6. 26. It must be noted that I.A.1/19 was filed seeking to raise additional grounds and also additional prayer whereby the petitioners had sought to challenge the annulling of Katha standing in the name of the petitioners and effecting katha in the name of respondents nos.4 to 6 pursuant to the impugned order which are stated to be subsequent events. 27. It is noticed that the said application was ordered to be heard while finally disposing of the writ petition. The office objections are overruled and noticing that the application merely seeks to bring on record subsequent events and also seeks to challenge consequential orders pursuant to the impugned order the same is allowed and necessary amended petition to be filed in the registry. The additional prayer permitted to be raised pursuant to the application for amendment has been dealt with as per the discussion as made above. 28. Accordingly, the petitions are partly allowed and disposed off in light of the above directions and discussion.