- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18363 WP No. 109728 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.109728 OF 2025 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: SMT. M. SADAMMA @ B. SUDHA W/O MARUTHI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. WARD NO. 17, NEAR NATARAJ KALA MANDIR, TQ: KAMPLI, DIST: BELLARY-583132. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K. MABU SAB S/O. LATE GUDU SAB, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO.6, 2ND CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, TQ: KAMPLI, DIST: BELLARY-583132. 2. ABDUL KARIM SAB S/O. LATE GUDU SAB, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO.6, 2ND CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, TQ: KAMPLI, DIST: BELLARY-583132. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY) 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELLARY DISTRICT, STATION ROAD, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18363 WP No. 109728 of 2025 BSNL COLONY, COWL BAZAAR, TQ: AND DIST: BELLARI-583101. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUKA OFFICE KAMPLI, TQ: KAMPLI, DIST: BELLARI-583132. 6. THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPALITY, TQ: KAMPLI, DIST: BELLARI-583132. 7. SMT. RATNAGIRI ERAMMA W/O. LATE ERAPPA, AGE: 81 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. VEERATHPETH, WARD NO.17, TQ: KAMPLI, DIST: BELLARI-583132. 8. RATNAGIRI MELAGIRIYAPPA S/O. LATE MUDDANNA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VEERATHPETH, WARD NO.17, TQ: KAMPLI, DIST: BELLARI-583132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PARASHURAM R. HATTARAKIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R3-R5; NOTICE TO R6 & R8 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.12.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU ON I.A. NO.VI IN REV. APPEAL NO.37/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU ON I.A. NO.II IN REV. APPEAL NO.37/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-S AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18363 WP No. 109728 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. The petition is filed assailing the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by learned Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) on I.A.No.VI in Rev.Appeal No.37/2025, marked at Annexure-A. 2. In terms of the said order, the Tribunal has dismissed I.A.No.VI filed by the present petitioner, who prayed to vacate the stay order granted on 24.02.2025. 3. Certain facts borne out from the records are as under; 3.1 The property bearing Survey No.1395 measuring 11 Acres 76 Cents was the subject matter of sale in favour of respondents No.1 and 2. 3.2 Respondents No.1 and 2 were minors when the property was purchased in their name by their father. Survey No.1401 measuring 7 Acres 27 Cents was the subject matter of a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18363 WP No. 109728 of 2025 gift deed executed by donee-the grandmother. It is claimed that donee is acquired right over aforementioned 7 Acres 27 Cents of land under the registered gift deed dated 10.04.1961. The aforementioned properties were subject matter of exchange under the registered exchange deed dated 11.04.1962. 3.3 The petitioner claims that in view of the exchange deed dated 11.04.1962, the petitioner’s predecessor acquired right over property bearing Survey No.1395 measuring 11 Acres 76 Cents; and respondents No.1 and 2 acquired ownership over property bearing Survey No.1401 measuring 7 Acres 27 Cents referred to above. 3.4 It is stated that respondents No.1 and 2 after attaining majority, have sold portion of the property in Survey No.1401 measuring 7 Acre - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18363 WP No. 109728 of 2025 27 Cents under the registered sale deed dated 15.09.1983. 3.5 It is further stated that after 2017, five sale deeds have been executed in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.1401. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that five sale deeds were not executed, only three sale deeds were executed. 5. It is stated that respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.20 of 2017, on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge, Hospet, against the vendors of petitioner for injunction and said suit was dismissed on 19.07.2017. The petitioner claims to have purchased the property in Sy.No.1395 under registered sale deed dated 24.05.2023. 6. It is stated that the petitioner has converted 8 Acres 6 Cents of land in Sy.No.1395 and the present petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.151/2024, on the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18363 WP No. 109728 of 2025 file of learned Principal Civil Judge, Hosapete against respondents No.1 and 2 and the same is pending consideration. 7. An order of temporary injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner and against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The appeal against the said order is dismissed, and a writ petition is pending. 8. It is stated that respondents No.1 and 2 had filed Writ Petition No.105242/2024 challenging the order of conversion dated 30.09.2023 passed in favour of the petitioner, and the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. An appeal is filed and in the said appeal an ex-parte stay order was granted on 24.02.2025. 9. The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.6 to vacate the stay, raising the contention that the appeal is time-barred and that the appellants before the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18363 WP No. 109728 of 2025 Appellate Tribunal do not have title over the property under the exchange deed dated 11.04.1962. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order rejecting the application to vacate the stay is untenable. 10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would urge a contention that, when the property was allegedly exchanged in the year 1962, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were minors and their interests were not protected. It is also further submitted that, a suit is pending wherein the original sale deed of 1943 is called in question, as such, the title in respect of the petition property is not yet adjudicated and is the subject matter of the suit pending before the competent civil court. 11. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would also urge that the conversion order is obtained by practising fraud and suppressing material facts, and that the terms and conditions of the conversion order are also violated. It is further submitted that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18363 WP No. 109728 of 2025 petitioner is a purchaser of the property during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.273/2019, as such, the petitioner does not have a locus standi to challenge the stay order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 12. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 13. The Court has perused the prayer in O.S.No.273/2019. In the said suit, plaintiff has challenged the legality of the sale deed dated 28.06.1943, which is said to be the sale deed executed by Rathnagiri Muddamma Somanna in favour of the petitioner’s vendor. 14. Admittedly, the registered exchange deed of 1962 is not called in question. Admittedly, respondent Nos.1 and 2, having attained majority, have sold portions of the property which has been exchanged in their favour under the registered exchange deed of 1962. Petitioner alleges that there are five such sale deeds; however, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18363 WP No. 109728 of 2025 would submit that there are only three such sale deeds. Even if three sale deeds are executed it would prima facie indicate that the registered exchange deed of 1962 is acted upon. As already noticed, the exchange deed of 1962 is not called in question. 15. Thus, on the basis of the facts placed on record, referred to above, prima facie it is noticed that the petitioner has acquired title to the property bearing Survey No.1395. It is also true that the petitioner is a pendente lite purchaser. Thus, the petitioner would acquire title to the property subject to the result of O.S. No.273/2019. 16. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the Tribunal could not have rejected the application for vacating the stay order. Prima facie, the stay order is obtained against the conversion order obtained by a person who has acquired the property under a registered sale deed from the previous holder. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18363 WP No. 109728 of 2025 Whether the title has really passed on to the petitioner or not is a question to be adjudicated by the competent civil court where the suit is pending. 17. Under these circumstances, the impugned order rejecting the application for vacating the stay is set aside. The stay order granted by the Tribunal is vacated. 18. Thus order shall not be construed as having reflected anything on the merits of the claim of either the petitioner or respondent Nos.1 and 2. 19. This Court has not recorded any finding as to who is the owner of the property on merits. That question shall be answered by the court where the suit is pending. 20. It is needless to say that, since the petitioner has purchased the property during the pendency of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18363 WP No. 109728 of 2025 suit, the petitioner is bound by the result of the suit in O.S. No.273/2019. 21. Though learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the application seeking stay could not have been considered and granted without hearing the application for condonation of delay, since this Court has passed an order on merits relating to the application for vacating the stay order, the technical contention that the delay is not condoned is overruled. 22. It is needless to say that, in case any transaction takes place during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.273/2019, the purchaser is bound by the result of the suit. 23. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE Para 1 to 6-AM Para 7 to end-gab CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 41