- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO.1508 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: B.G. MANJUNATH @ B.G. MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS: 1(a) SMT. SHIVAKUMARI R.T. W/O. B.G. MANJUNATH @ B.G. MUNIYAPPA S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 1(b) SAHANA B.M. D/O. B.G. MANJUNATH @ B.G. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 1(c) SUJITHKUMAR B.M. S/O. B.G. MANJUNATH @ B.G. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 1(d) AKSITHA B.M. D/O. B.G. MANJUNATH @ B.G. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 1(e) ANANYA B.M. D/O. B.G. MANJUNATH @ B.G. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, - 2 - APPELLANT NOS.1(a) TO 1(e) ALL ARE RESIDING AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, JANGAMMA KOTE HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI KESHAV RANGANATHACHAR AGNIHOTHRI, ADVOCATE AND SRI K. NARASIMHAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR. 2 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION. 3 . THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI. 4 . B.C. JAYASHANKAR S/O. B.C. CHANNAPPA MINOR REPRESENTED BY SMT. T. HEMALATHA THIPPENAHALLI NEAR RANGAYATHA CHIKKABALLAPUR. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI C.M. ASHWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R.4.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE WRIT PETITION NO.6539 OF 2006 DATED 31.07.2024 AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL NO.1508 OF 2024 IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6539/2006, the present writ appeal is filed by the petitioners therein. 2. The writ petition came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge. In the writ petition, the prayer was made to call for the records and set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner in case No.RA 30/2002-03 dated 17.02.2006 insofar as it related to the claim of the petitioner in respect of Survey No.56/P9 of Byrasandra, Siddlaghatta Taluka admeasuring 2 Acres. 2.1 It was the case of the petitioner-appellant herein that he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. It originally belonged to Late Venkatappa who was the father (adopted) of the petitioner. The petitioner was in actual possession and cultivation of the land along with the said - 4 - Venkatappa. The petitioner produced copies of the RTC for the years 2004-2005, 1987-1992 to 1997 which was showing the possession and enjoyment. It is stated that during the lifetime of Venkatappa, he had no issues. Therefore, Venkatappa had adopted the petitioner. 2.2 The said Venkatappa during his lifetime instituted a suit in respect of the property which was Original Suit No.91 of 1985. In that suit, the parties entered into compromise and decree in terms of compromise was passed. The petitioner stated that after adoption by the said Venkatappa as a son, the petitioner took all care and gave affection to the adoptive father and father had also due love and affection towards the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records as per the order of the Deputy Tahasildar in Case No.RRT/CR/29/1991-1992 dated 08.09.1995. It is case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has no right or interest in the land in question. However, he has been relying on the Will alleged to have been executed by the said Late Venkatappa. The Adoption Deed is dated 25.06.1978 and it is the contention of the petitioner that the Will was not valid in law in view of the restriction on the rights of the adoptive father. - 5 - 2.3 Respondent No.4 filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner against entering of the name which was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner on 27.06.2000 and the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal without appreciating the facts, stated the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was filed. 2.4 The grounds which are urged before learned Single Judge were reiterated before this Court. It was contended that the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar-respondent No.1 herein did not hear the petitioner and passed the order dated 17.02.2008 in the appeal. Therefore, only the same is required to be set aside. It was contended that respondent No.4 was not entitled to rely on the Will and such contention was not tenable once the name and address of the dattaka (adopted son) was entered in the agreement even though they were in joint cultivation of the land and belonged to joint family. It was contended that the name of the petitioner in khata and RTC was rightly entered into by respondent No.3-Deputy Tahasildar after holding inquiry. However, the same was wrongly set aside by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and that it has resulted into miscarriage of justice. - 6 - 3. Thus the dispute pertains to the revenue entries in respect of 2 Acres of land in Survey No.56/9, Byrasandra village, Jangamakote Hobli, Siddlaghatta Taluk. Admittedly, the property was owned by one Venkatappa. The original petitioner, who claimed to be his adopted son, contended that he is the owner of the property concerned. Respondent No.4 herein contended that the deceased Venkatappa bequeathed the property in his name by way of a will. In this regard, the original petitioner filed O.S.No.78/1993 and respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.348/1995. The trial court and the First Appellate Court have dismissed the claim of the original petitioner and have upheld the claim of respondent No.4, against which Regular Second Appeal Nos.1626/2011 and 1627/2011 are said to be pending. In the meanwhile, there has been a dispute between the parties as to the name that should be reflected in the revenue records. 4. The learned Single Judge on the ground that the trial court and the First Appellate Court have both held that the original petitioner has no right over the property concerned and that respondent No.4 has a right over the same and after noticing that no contrary order has been passed in the Regular - 7 - Second Appeals and they are still pending has passed the following order: "11. Respondent No.4 is entitled to have his name mutated to the extent of 1 acre in the land bearing Sy. No.56/9 based on the decrees rendered by the Courts below. However, this mutation will be subject to the outcome of the pending Second Appeals in RSA Nos.1626/2011 and 1627/2011. As for the remaining 1 acre of land, it shall be retained in the name of Venkatappa pending the resolution of the above Regular Second Appeals." 5. Learned Single Judge took note of the decisions in Original Suit Nos.78 of 1993 and 348 of 1995 aforementioned. The petitioner's suit No.78 of 1993 was dismissed and the suit of respondent No.4, Original Suit No.348 of 1995 was decreed, observed learned Single Judge. As stated above, regular appeals were filed which came to be dismissed by the appellate court and the judgment and decree of the trial court in both the suits came to be confirmed. The regular second appeals are pending having been admitted. 5.1 It is noted that in the Regular Second Appeal Nos.1626 of 2011 and 1627 of 2011 following substantial questions are framed, "Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the appellant is not the adopted son of Venkatappa, having regard to - 8 - the compromise decree at Ex.P.7 dated 10.08.1987? Whether the respondents acquired title to the entire extent of land under Ex.P.2 -Will, considering the compromise decree dated 10.08.1987? 5.2 Learned Single Judge observed in paragraph 10, "In view of the substantial questions of law framed by this Court, the mutation proceedings challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot remain pending. The Courts below have rendered concurrent judgments and decrees declaring respondent No.4 as the owner based on Venkatappa’s Will. However, the subject matter of the Will pertains only to 1 acre of land. This Court, in framing the substantial questions of law, has acknowledged whether respondent No.4 can claim title to the entire extent when the Will covers only 1 acre of land. Considering the judgments rendered by the Courts below and the substantial questions of law framed by this Court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed." 6. The appellants have sought to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that respondent No.4 has fabricated the will and the trial court and the First Appellate Court have erred in dismissing the original suit filed by the original petitioner and decreeing the suit of respondent No.4. On the said ground and also on the ground that the learned Single Judge could not have passed the impugned order when - 9 - the Regular Second Appeals are pending has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Admittedly, the claim of the original petitioner has been negatived by the trial court and the First Appellate Court and though the Regular Second Appeals are filed challenging the same, no contrary order has been passed in the second appeals. Further, the claim of respondent No.4 has been upheld by both the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court. Taking note of these facts, the learned Single Judge has passed the aforementioned order and has made it subject to the outcome of the second appeals. We do not see any reason to interfere in the well reasoned order of the learned Single Judge, and hence, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, pending I.As. do not survive and they stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (N.V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh.