- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6963 WP No. 20669 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 20669 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE PATEL NARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 110. 2. THE THASILDHAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 3. SRI. HONNAPPA, LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS 3(A). SMT. KEMPAMMA, W/O LATE HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6963 WP No. 20669 of 2024 3(B). SRI. RAMEGOWDA B.H, S/O LATE HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS THE RESPONDENT NO. 3(A) AND (B) BOTH ARE R/AT BEERASANDRA VILLAEG, ALURDUDDANAHALLI POST, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 3(C). SMT. PRAMEELA @ PRAMILAMMA, W/O A. SHIVAKUMAR, D/O LATE HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT I. BASAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST - 562 110. 3(D). SMT. ANJINAMMA, W/O BYREGOWDA, D/O LATE HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 792/1, WAR NO.4, KERE KODI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST - 562 135. 4. SMT. SHIVARATHNAMMA, D/O LATE MALLAIAH @ MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 15-7-9, HINDUPURAM MUNISIPALITY, HINDUPURAM, ANANTHAPURA DIST, A.P. STATE - 652 101. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6963 WP No. 20669 of 2024 5. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O LATE MALLAIAH @ MALLAPPA, W/O LAKSHMINARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 951, 9TH CROSS, MUTHALAMMA TEMPLE ROAD SHANTHINAGAR, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN AND TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 572 110. 6. SRI. CHANNAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MALLAIAH @ MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE - 572 110. 7. SRI. SHANTHAMURTHY S/O LATE MALLAIAH @ MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE - 572 110. 8. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE MALLAIAH @ MALLAPPA W/O LATE RAJJAGOPALA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT SINGAVARA, VENKATAGIRI KOTTE POST, VIJIPURU HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 572 110. 9. SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE MALLAIAH @ MALLAPPA, W/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6963 WP No. 20669 of 2024 R/AT S NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, TUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 572 110. 10. SMT. ANANDAMMA D/O LATE MALLAIAH @ MALLAPPA W/O NARASHIMARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMIDEVIPURA TUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 572 110. 11. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE MALLAIAH @ MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 572 110. 12. SMT. ANJULAMMA W/O LATE B M NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 572 110. 13. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DIST. - 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R13; SRI. B.M. HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R12; SRI. K.B. CHANDRASHEKARA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A TO E)) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6963 WP No. 20669 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY WRIT OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 23.07.2024 PASSED BY THE DC, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BY ACCEPTING THE JOINT MEMO VIDE ANN-D FILED BY THE R-3 TO 10 IN RP NO. 230/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WP AND DISMISS THE R.P NO. 230/2023 FILED BY THE R-3 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 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed assailing the order of respondent No.13/Assistant Commissioner confirmed by respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition concerning agricultural land bearing Sy.No.1, measuring a total of 14 acres and 13 guntas. Out of this, the father of private respondents No.4 to 10, namely Mallaiah @ Mallappa, purchased one acre from the petitioner’s father, Patel Narayanagowda, through a registered sale deed dated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6963 WP No. 20669 of 2024 08.07.1975. Respondent No.3-Honnappa who is no more was the plaintiff in O.S.No.356/2012, has challenged these alienations, contending that the property in question was acquired using joint family funds. The said suit is currently pending, wherein late Honnappa sought partition and separate possession of the property. 4. The petitioner does not dispute the alienation made by his father regarding the said one-acre portion but asserts that the property was his father’s self-acquired asset. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the joint memo filed before the Deputy Commissioner, wherein late respondent No.3, Honnappa, and private respondents No.4 to 11 arrived at a compromise. The joint memo contains statements suggesting that the property was purchased using joint family funds. The petitioner apprehends that these statements may adversely impact his rights in the ongoing partition suit in O.S.No.356/2012. 5. This Court holds that statements made before revenue authorities lack evidentiary value in this context. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6963 WP No. 20669 of 2024 The present dispute primarily pertains to mutation. Since the petitioner’s father alienated one acre of land in Sy.No.6 to the father of respondents No.4 to 11 through a registered sale deed dated 08.07.1975, the private respondents are entitled to have their names mutated for the extent of one acre, subject to the final outcome of O.S.No.356/2012. 6. Regarding the joint statement made by private respondents No.4 to 10 before the Deputy Commissioner while recording the compromise, this Court finds that the assertion that the property was purchased using joint family funds does not bind the petitioner. The petitioner retains the right to present rebuttal evidence in the partition suit to establish that the property was self- acquired by his father, Patel Narayanagowda. The admission made by respondent No.3, Honnappa, in the revenue proceedings carries no legal consequence. It remains the responsibility of respondent No.3, Honnappa and now on his legal heirs to prove that the property is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6963 WP No. 20669 of 2024 joint family ancestral property. Simultaneously, the petitioner, as a defendant in the partition suit, has the right to contest this claim and substantiate that the land and other properties were self-acquired by late Patel Narayanagowda. 7. Keeping this issue open to be adjudicated in the pending partition suit, this Court passes the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT: BHK