ORDER : R. NATARAJ, J. The petitioners have challenged an endorsement bearing No. respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners claim that they are the joint owners of the property bearing No.139 (old No.19/1) (PID No.68-309- 139) situate at Maistry Palya, 4 th ‘B’ block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 034 measuring East to West 38 feet and North to South 28 feet and totally measuring 1056 sq. ft. (henceforth referred to as the petition schedule property). They claim that their father – Mr. Byrappa had purchased the petition schedule property from his vendors under registered sale deed dated 12.11.1963. On the demise of their father on 20.04.2008, their mother – Smt. Lakshmamma and they succeeded to the petition schedule property. The petitioners claim that after the demise of their mother on 28.11.2015, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property, the khata of which continued in the name of their mother. They contend that one Smt. Sunitha L, Sri Mahesh S., Sri Kiran Kumar V., Sri N. Dinesh, Sri N. Ravindra and Sri N. Ramachandra attempted to encroach upon the northern portion of the property measuring about 532 sq. ft. and in that regard, they and two others filed O.S. No.7921/2016 against respondent Nos.3 to 9 herein before the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) inter alia for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit ‘A’ schedule property and mandatory injunction directing them to demolish the compound wall and any other structures put up by them on the schedule ‘B’ property at their own cost and for declaration that the sale deed dated 10.08.2016 executed by the defendant No.7 therein / respondent No.9 herein and others were not binding on the plaintiffs. In the said suit, an application (I.A No.1) was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Trial Court rejected the application in terms of the order dated 17.12.2016 against which they filed M.F.A. No.360/2017 before this Court. This Court dismissed the appeal in terms of the judgment dated 08.02.2018. 3. The petitioners contend that the suit in O.S.No.7921/2016 is still pending adjudication before the Trial Court. The Trial Court rejected the application in terms of the order dated 17.12.2016 against which they filed M.F.A. No.360/2017 before this Court. This Court dismissed the appeal in terms of the judgment dated 08.02.2018. 3. The petitioners contend that the suit in O.S.No.7921/2016 is still pending adjudication before the Trial Court. However, the respondent No.2 took note of the judgment dated 08.02.2018 passed by this Court in M.F.A No.360/2017 and reduced the area of the petition schedule property belonging to them in the property records from 1056 sq. ft. to 595 sq. ft. and issued an endorsement to that effect, which was served on the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, being aggrieved by the said endorsement, have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petition schedule property belonging to the petitioners is assessed and the area mentioned in the property register is 1056 sq. ft. He contends that the respondent No.2 taking note of the findings recorded by this Court in the judgment dated 08.02.2018 in M.F.A No.360/2017, had reduced the area from 1056 sq. ft. to 595 sq. ft. He contends that when the suit in O.S No.7921/2016 is still pending consideration before the Trial Court, the respondent No.2 could not have done so and must have awaited the final outcome of the proceedings. 5. Respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 have filed their statement of objections inter alia contending that the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S. No.7921/2016 before the Trial Court, against the respondents herein for the relief of declaration in respect of the very same properties, which are the subject matter of the present petition, and since the said suit is pending adjudication before the Trial Court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that originally, the property bearing Sy. No.19/1 of Maistry Palya, measuring East to West 38 feet and North to South 47 feet now lying in Koramangala Ward of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) belonged to one Sri Gollara Ramaiah. He had three sons, namely, Sri Monappa, Sri Narayanappa and Sri Krishnappa. As per the family settlement deed dated 28.01.1952, the family of the said Sri Gollara Ramaiah and his sons decided to partition the said property. In view of a partition deed dated 28.01.1952, each of the sons of late Sri Gollara Ramaiah was allotted 1/3 rd share. He had three sons, namely, Sri Monappa, Sri Narayanappa and Sri Krishnappa. As per the family settlement deed dated 28.01.1952, the family of the said Sri Gollara Ramaiah and his sons decided to partition the said property. In view of a partition deed dated 28.01.1952, each of the sons of late Sri Gollara Ramaiah was allotted 1/3 rd share. It is further stated that Sri Monappa, the vendor of the petitioners, sold his entire southern 1/3 rd share in the property in favour of Sri Byrappa, who is none other than the father of the petitioners / plaintiff Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 9 in the suit in O.S No.7921/2016 on 12.11.1963 and handed over possession of the same to them. In view of the said purchase, Sri Byrappa was put in possession of the said portion of 1/3 rd share in the land in Sy. No.19/1. The second son of late Sri Gollara Ramaiah, namely, Sri Narayanappa sold the extent of land in Sy. No.19/1 which had fallen to his share in the family partition in favour of Sri B. Narayanaswamy through registered sale deed dated 14.02.1985 and in turn, the said Sri B. Narayanaswamy sold the same in favour of respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 under a registered sale deed dated 10.08.2016. Another son of late Sri Gollara Ramaiah, namely, Sri Krishnappa had sold the extent of the land in Sy. No.19/1 that had fallen to his share as per the family partition in favour of Sri Hanumaiah under registered sale deed dated 09.08.1954 and in turn, the said Sri Hanumaiah sold the same in favour of respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 under a registered sale deed dated 10.08.2016. Thus, respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 had purchased the shares of one Sri Narayanappa and Sri Krishnappa, sons of late Sri Gollara Ramaiah. They contend that even though the petitioners are entitled for only 38 feet x 16 feet, they have filed the suit in O.S. No.7921/2016 before the Trial Court alleging that Sri Monappa had sold the entire extent of land in Sy. No.19/1 in favour of Sri Byrappa. They contend that even though the petitioners are entitled for only 38 feet x 16 feet, they have filed the suit in O.S. No.7921/2016 before the Trial Court alleging that Sri Monappa had sold the entire extent of land in Sy. No.19/1 in favour of Sri Byrappa. They contend that on the basis of the registered sale deeds and the judgment passed by this Court in M.F.A No.360/2017, the respondent – BBMP had effected the khata in the names of the respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 and the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the same. Consequently, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 submitted that one Sri Gollara Ramaiah was the owner of the property bearing Sy. No.19/1 of Maistry Palya measuring East to West 38 feet and North to South 47 feet situate in Koramangala ward of BBMP portion/s of which is/are listed in the schedule to the plaint in O.S. No.7921/20. At a family settlement on 28.01.1952, three sons of Sri Gollara Ramaiah took 1/3 rd share each of the said property. The father of the petitioners, namely, Sri Byrappa, had purchased the 1/3 rd share that fell to the share of Sri. Monappa, one of the sons of Sri Gollara Ramaiah, though it was mentioned in the sale deed that 1056 sq. ft. was sold. Therefore, the petitioners could not have claimed more than 1/3 rd share in the entire property. She contends that this Court in M.F.A No.360/2017 after considering the above, had held that the defendant Nos.1 to 6 in O.S No.7921/2016 are entitled to 2/3 rd share in the suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs are entitled to only 1/3 rd share. She, therefore, contends that taking into account the finding recorded by this Court, respondent No.2 had reduced the area of the property mentioned in the property register from 1056 sq. ft. to 595 sq. ft. She thus contends that there is no error committed by the respondent No.2 in doing so. Hence, she contends that there is no need to interfere with the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. 8. Hence, she contends that there is no need to interfere with the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. 8. It is undisputed that prior to the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2, the name of the mother of the petitioners was entered in the property registers maintained by the respondent No.2 in respect of 1056 sq. feet. The petitioners have filed O.S. No.7921/2016 for perpetual injunction and subsequently, amended the plaint for declaration of their title in respect of 1056 sq. feet. No doubt an application – I.A. No.1 filed by them in O.S No.7921/2016 was rejected by the Trial Court and as against the same, an appeal in M.F.A No.360/2017 was filed before this Court. This Court while considering the appeal, had held that the plaintiffs in O.S. No.7921/2016 / petitioners herein were entitled to 1/3 rd share in the property bearing Sy. No.19/1 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 47 feet, which share their father - Sri Byrappa, had purchased from Sri Monappa, one of the sons of late Sri Gollara Ramaiah, while the defendant Nos.1 to 6 / respondent Nos.3 to 8 herein were entitled to 2/3 rd share of Sri Narayanappa and Sri Krishnappa, sons of late Sri Gollara Ramaiah, in the said property. This finding was only tentative and the respondent No.2 could not have taken that finding into account to reduce the area of the property mentioned in the property register. The respondent No.2 must have awaited the outcome of the suit in O.S. No.7921/2016 and thereafter, could not have taken a decision to reduce the area of the property in question. 9. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed off on the following terms: The impugned endorsement bearing No. issued by the respondent No.2 is quashed. The respondent No.2 is directed to await the outcome of the suit in O.S. No.7921/2016 pending consideration before the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and thereafter, take a decision as to whether the area of the petition schedule property standing in the name of the mother of the petitioners has to be reduced from 1056 sq. feet to 595 sq. feet.