Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20900 (KAR)

MR GILBERT D SOUZA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/32964/2024 · 2026-06-08

E S Indiresh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27175 WP NO.32964 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.32964 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. MR. GILBERT D'SOUZA S/O LATE BENEDICT D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.535, CHANNARAYAPATNA ROAD, NEAR OLD BUS STOP, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 110. 2. MRS. CYNTHIA LEWIS W/O LATE AUGUSTINE D'SOUZA, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE BENEDICT D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 3. MRS. BINITA D'SOUZA DAUHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE AUGUSTINE D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER PETITIONER NO.4-BANSTON D'SOUZA, S/O LATE AUGUSTINE D'SOUZA. 4. MR. BANSTON D'SOUZA, S/O LATE AUGUSTINE D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.534, PUTTAPPANAGUDI BEEDI, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27175 WP NO.32964 OF 2024 DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 110. 5. MR. XAVIER RUDOLF D'SOUZA S/O LATE BENEDICT D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-62, BENRISE KACHUR, BARKUR, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 210. 6. MRS. THERESALOBO W/O LATE BENEDICT D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1-62, RAYARA THOTA KACHUR, BARKUR, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 210. 7. MRS. DULCINE JOSEPH CORDA D/O LATE BENEDICT D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.A-24, TULIP APARTMENT, SAI BABA NAGAR, NEAR ST. THOMAS CHURCH, MIRA ROAD EAST, MIRA-BHAYANDAR, THANE, MAHARASHTRA-40 1 107. 8. MRS. DEJI BARNES D/O LATE BENEDICT D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-62, RAYARA THOTA KACHUR, BARKUR, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 210. 9. MRS. WILMA FERNANDES D/O LATE BENEDICT D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.10-135 (2) PHIL-WIL, SHANTHI NAGAR, NEAR S.M.C., KODANGALLU, MOODABIDRI, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 197. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27175 WP NO.32964 OF 2024 10. MRS. MEENA RITA SALDANHA D/O LATE BENEDICT D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. R/AT H.NO.11-68C, KALAIBAIL, PITHRODI POST, UDYAVARA VILLAGE, UDUPI - 574 118. PETITIONER NOS. 5 TO 10 ARE REP. BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER PETITIONER NO.4 - BANSTON D'SOUZA. S/O LATE AUGUSTINE D'SOUZA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 3. SRI. G. CHANDRANNA S/O LATE H.V. GOPALAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, 2ND CROSS, CHIRANJEEVI LAYOUT, HEBBALA KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 024. 4. SRI. R. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE REDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.105, 'LAKSHMI NILAYA', - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27175 WP NO.32964 OF 2024 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, PAPANNA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO EFFECT MUTATION ENTRIES IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES HELD BY THEM PURSUANT TO THE PARTITION DEED DATED 03RD JULY, 2024 AND THE INTIMATION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RRESPONDNET NO.2 IN CASE NO. R.R.T/DIS/(KASABA)C.R.81/2024 VIDE ANNEXURES 'A' AND 'B'; 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 E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners are seeking direction to the respondent No.2 to effect Mutation entries in favour of the petitioners in respect of the property held by them pursuant to the registered Partition Deed dated 03rd July, 2024 (Annexure- A) and the Intimation Notice issued by the respondent No.2 in Case No.R.R.T/Dis/(Kasaba)C.R.81/2024 (Annexure-B). 2. Heard Sri. Rajashekar S., learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27175 WP NO.32964 OF 2024 Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri. Narasimharaju, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 3. Sri. Rajashekar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners refers to the registered Partition Deed dated 03rd July, 2024 (Annexure-A) and submitted that the partition has been effected amongst the family members of the petitioners. Accordingly, he sought for direction to the respondent No.2 to effect mutation entries in favour of the petitioners in respect of the subject property. 4. Per contra, Sri. Narasimharaju, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the lis between the parties is pending before this Court in Commercial Appeal No.294 of 2025. He further submits that the lis between the parties as to the Joint Development Agreement is required to be tested before the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned Commercial Appeal. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 argued - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27175 WP NO.32964 OF 2024 in lines of learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for parties, it is not in dispute that the Partition Deed dated 03rd July, 2024 (Annexure-A) has been executed between the family members of the petitioners. Therefore, as the said partition deed is a registered document, it is the duty of the respondent No.2 to enter the same in the Mutation records and change the names as per the Partition Deed. In the event, if the respondents 3 and 4 are aggrieved by the same, it is open for them to challenge the same in a manner known to law and to establish their right over the schedule property. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to consider claim made by the petitioners in accordance with law, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of this order. With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66