- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15486 WP No. 61046 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 61046 OF 2012 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. RANGAVVA W/O. HANUMAPPA BHAIROL, AGE : 65 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREKABBAR, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI. 2. RATNAVVA W/O. HEMAPPA HOTTEPPALAVAR, AGE : 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREKABBAR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI. 3. KAMALAVVA W/O. HANUMAPPA BHAIROL, AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREKKABBAR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST : HAVERI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST : HAVERI. 3. GIRIJAVVA W/O. RANGAPPA BENAVALLI @ KURSHANI, AGE : MAJOR, OC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAROBENAVALLI, TQ. AND DIST : SHIVAMOGGA. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED 05/01/2012 IN RTS:RA:CR-17/2011-12 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 20/06/2011 IN RTS/AP/94/2009-10, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.19 12:20:57 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15486 WP No. 61046 of 2012 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner as well as respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner. 2. In terms of the order dated 05.01.2012 marked at Annexure-G, the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner thereby has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner marked at Annexure-E, in terms of which, the Assistant Commissioner has directed the entries to be recorded in the property records pursuant to the decree of the Civil Court between the parties. Consequently, Assistant Commissioner has also cancelled M.E.No.15/2004-05 certified on 20.12.2004. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner erred in cancelling M.E.No.15/2004-05 which is certified entering - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15486 WP No. 61046 of 2012 the name of 1st petitioner’s adopted son. It is his submission that the petition properties are the properties allotted to the share of the petitioners and in case, petitioner No.1 has taken anyone in adoption and name of the adopted son is entered in the properties records and the respondents cannot have any objection to the said entry. Thus, it is urged that impugned orders have to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would urge that the adopted son does not acquire any right in the property of petitioner No.1. It is his submission that in Final Decree Proceeding No.12/1990 on the file of Munsiff Court, Hirekerur, the petition properties are allotted to the share of 1st plaintiff in the said Final Decree Proceedings namely Rangavva who is also petitioner No.1 and also to respondents No.9 to 12 of the said proceedings. 5. Referring to the clause in the compromise decree passed in FDP No.12/1990, it is urged that the name of respondents No.9 to 12 in the compromise decree, should also be recorded in the property records. The relevant clause in the said final decree reads as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15486 WP No. 61046 of 2012 “1£Éà ªÁ¢ 3£Éà ¨ÁæöåAZÀ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ »¸Éì ¥ÀqÉ¢zÁÝgÉ 9 jAzÁ 12 ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ WÀgÁtÂzÀ°è §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ CªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃj ¥ÀqÉzÀzÀÄÝ EzÉ.” 6. This clause would indicate that 1st petitioner – Rangavva, 1st plaintiff in the said Final Decree Proceeding has taken share in the properties on behalf of 3rd branch of the joint family which also comprises respondents No.9 to 12 in the said Final Decree Proceeding. Respondents No.9 to 12 are as under: “9. Revakka w/o Hanamappa Pattenahalli 10. Hanamavva w/o Hanumantappa Shiddipur 11. Sanjavakka w/o Basappa Walinahalli 12. Girijavva w/o Rangappa Benavalli.” 7. Aforesaid Girijavva is respondent No.3 in this petition. Rest of the sharers are not made parties to this proceeding. 8. Since the compromise decree in FDP No.12/1990 referred to above has attained finality, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the compromise decree in FDP No.12/1990 cannot be said to be erroneous. Once a decree - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15486 WP No. 61046 of 2012 has attained finality, the decree is to be given effect to. Thus, the names of parties to whom the properties are allotted are to be entered in the property records. 9. The Court does not find any error in the impugned orders which is in conformity with FDP No.12/1990 referred to above. 10. Since it is stated that petitioner No.1 – Rangavva is no more, the names of legal representatives of Rangavva are to be entered in the property records representing the share of Rangavva. 11. Hence, the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 5