- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3998 WP No. 1748 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1748 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: HARISH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, R/O KATTUGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALUIRU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.R. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.R. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3998 WP No. 1748 of 2025 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM BANGALORE-560 016. 5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR LAND RECORDS BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R.PURA, BENGALURU560 016. 6. B.N.SRASWATHI W/O M.NRAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 13, MARUTHI NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN, KAVERINAGAR, G.M. PALYA, BANGALORE-560 075. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R-5 IN SUM. BHU.SA.NI.MO.TAKARU.37/2024-25 (ANNX-K) AND ON PERUSAL ISSUE WRIT OR ORDES BY GRANTING THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS. QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD. 06.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-5 AS PER ANNX-K BY HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3998 WP No. 1748 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is assailing the endorsement dated 06.12.2024 issued by the 5th respondent, the Assistant Director for Land Records. 2. In the said endorsement, the 5th respondent has indicated that the phodi cannot be stalled unless the petitioner is able to secure an appropriate interim order from the hands of the civil Court in pending suit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 4. Before this Court delves into the matter, deems it fit to cull out the prayers sought in the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.407/2008. The prayers are as under: a). declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties; b). Consequently, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3998 WP No. 1748 of 2025 (i) declare that the panchayath parikath / partition deed dated 15.04.1982 and 25.04.1982 are false & created documents and the same is not binding upon the plaintiffs and same. (ii) declare that the Gift deed dated 05.10.2006 executed by 4th defendant M Naranaswamy in favour of his wife 9th defendant B.N. Saraswathi and sale deed dated 23.07.2007 executed by B.N. Saraswathi in favour of 10th defendant Narasimha Murthy are null and void and same is not binding upon the plaintiffs. (iii) declare that the sale deed dated 2.08.2007 executed by 7th defendant Subbamma & others in favour of 10th defendant Narasimha Murthy is not binding upon the plaintiffs and the same is null & void. (iv) declare that the sale deed dated 15.10.2007 executed by 1st defendant Sri Hanumanthappa & others in favour of 11th defendant Smt Nallamma N is not binding upon the plaintiffs and same is null & void. c) restrain the defendants their agents, representatives, henchmen or any one claiming under then or through them by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties; d) allow the suit with costs and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice & equity. (e) in the alternative for prayer ©, if this Hon'ble Court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in possession of any items of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3998 WP No. 1748 of 2025 suit schedule properties, for possession of those items of suit schedule properties." 5. Upon a careful review of the reliefs sought in the suit instituted by the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner has asserted absolute ownership over the subject property. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of the partition deeds dated 15.04.1982 and 25.04.1982, which form an integral part of the dispute. Additionally, the petitioner has sought a declaration to nullify the gift deed dated 05.10.2006 and the subsequent sale deeds executed in furtherance of the said gift. 6. The suit has been pending adjudication since 2008. In the absence of any prohibitory order issued by the competent Court where the matter is being considered, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the endorsement issued by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent, being the competent authority, was well within its jurisdiction to process the phodi application filed at the instance of the private respondent. The private - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3998 WP No. 1748 of 2025 respondent, having derived rights through validly executed title documents, is entitled to seek phodi and durasthi unless and until the partition deeds, gift deed, and subsequent sale deeds are declared null and void by a competent Court. Mere pendency of the suit does not ipso facto prevent the private respondent from asserting rights emanating from registered documents. However, the petitioner retains the liberty to seek appropriate orders in the pending suit, including any interim relief necessary to protect the asserted rights. The petition stands disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37