- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45276 WP No. 53194 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 53194 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.8, 6TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, MOHANKUMARANAGARA, YESHWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE-560 022. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURTHY K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER N.R. SQUARE, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE CITY-560 001. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST) APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MALLESHWARAM DIVISION, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE CITY-560 003. 3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (WEST) GANDHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE CITY-560 009. 4. SRI. JAVARAIAH S/O. CHIKKADODIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.246/34, B/E 12TH AND 13TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE-560 003. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45276 WP No. 53194 of 2018 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. NATARAJ H.T., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-K IN CASE NO.27/2015-16 DATED 08.06.2018 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, (WEST), APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MALLESHWARAM DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE CITY-560003 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 08.06.2018 passed in Case No.27/2015-16 by respondent No.2. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings for change of Khatha in the name of respondent No.4 vide proceedings No.D.A.(E) Ward No.77/Khatha-192/ 2014-2015 dated 11.05.2015. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that the property bearing old No.367/1, new No.3, 3rd Cross, Nagappa Street, Guttahalli, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru–560003 was owned and possessed by Smt. Chikkamma, she having purchased the same in terms of a sale deed dated 19-12-1960. The said - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45276 WP No. 53194 of 2018 Smt. Chikkamma died leaving behind her two daughters and a son. The petitioner being the grand daughter of Smt. Chikkamma filed a suit in O.S.No.4688/2014 for partition and separate possession. The said suit is pending. During the pendency of the suit, the two daughters of Smt. Chikkamma namely, Smt. Jayamma and Smt. Lakshmamma sold the property in terms of a sale deed dated 31.10.2014 in favour of the respondent No.4 based on the gift deed dated 01.07.2011 purportedly executed by Smt. Chikkamma in their favour. (ii) The petitioner then filed objections before the respondent Nos.1 to 3 against changing the Khatha of the property in the name of respondent No.4. The respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to furnish proof of proceedings in O.S.No.4688/2014 and stated that the Khatha of the property would not be changed in favour of the respondent No.4 until the civil proceeding was concluded. The petitioner then placed the proceedings sheet in O.S No.4688/2014 before respondent No.3 and also the proceedings initiated by her in O.S No.33/2015 before the Court at Kunigal. The respondent No.3 again took up the matter and by order dated 07.05.2015 directed that the Khatha be changed to the name of respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45276 WP No. 53194 of 2018 No.4 subject however to the condition that, "if any objections are received/raised with respect to change of Khatha in respect of the said property, the Khatha will be cancelled". (iii) The petitioner claims that she was not heard in the matter and after coming to know that the Khatha was effected in the name of respondent No.4, she submitted a representation before respondent No.3 who issued an endorsement dated 13.01.2016. The petitioner challenged the said endorsement before the appellate authority under Section 114-A of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The said proceeding was dismissed by the respondent No.2, in terms of the impugned order. The petitioner is therefore before the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the grand daughter/(daughter-in-law) of Smt. Chikkamma and that the property held by Smt. Chikkamma was joint family property and therefore the petitioner was entitled to an undivided share therein. He therefore contends that Smt. Chikkmma did not have the right to bequeath the property to her daughters and the daughters in turn, did not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45276 WP No. 53194 of 2018 have an absolute right to convey the property to the respondent No.4. He further submits that the suit in O.S.No.4334/2022 is pending consideration and the respondent No.3 ought not to have entered the name of respondent No.4. He submits that the respondent No.2 also did not consider the aforesaid aspects and committed an error in rejecting the review petition filed under Section 114-A of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. 4. The writ petition is opposed by respondent No.4, who has filed a detailed statement of objections inter alia contending that the property was owned by Smt. Chikkamma and that she had executed a gift deed in favour of her two daughters from whom the respondent No.4 purchased. He contends that the question whether the property owned by Smt. Chikkamma was her absolute property or property of joint family is to be established before the Civil Court and that such controversy cannot stop respondent No.3 from entering the name of the respondent No.4 in the property register maintained by him. He submits that the suits in O.S. No.4688/2014 and O.S. No.33/2015 were withdrawn and that the petitioner again renewed her objection by filing another - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45276 WP No. 53194 of 2018 suit. He therefore contends that there is no error in entering the name of the respondent No.4 in the property register. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 4 reiterated the above contentions and submits that if the petitioner succeeds in the suit, the Khatha may thereafter be restored to her name. He submits that so long as there is a valid conveyance executed by the daughters of Smt. Chikkamma in favour of respondent No.4, the Khata entered in the name of the respondent No.4 is just and proper and no interference is warranted. 6. The property in question was undoubtedly and indisputedly held by Smt. Chikkamma. The petitioner herself has admitted that the said property was purchased by Smt. Chikkmma in terms of a sale deed dated 19.12.1960. Smt. Chikkamma thereafter bequeathed the said property in favour of her two daughters on 01.07.2011 and the two daughters subsequently sold the property to the respondent No. 4. The R-3 would obviously not go into questions of fact which were pending before the Civil Court but was bound to follow the conveyance in favour of respondent No.4 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45276 WP No. 53194 of 2018 register his name in the property register. Prima facie, it appears that the property was not the ancestral property as claimed by the petitioner. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for partition and separate possession of her share and also for declaration that Smt. Chikkamma had executed a Will in her favour, the Khatha entered in the name of the respondent No.4 cannot be disturbed. In the circumstances, no interference is warranted with the orders of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed. However if the petitioner succeeds in the suit filed by her for partition and separate possession and if the property in question is allotted to the petitioner, then the Khatha of the property in question shall stand transferred to the name of the petitioner. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32