IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR WRIT APPEAL No.2780/2018 & W.A. No.2812/2018 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
1. SRI DHANARAM CHOUDHARY S/O. SRI GODAJI CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SMT. DEEPA W/O. SRI DHANARAM CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. SRI HITESH D. CHOUDHARY S/O. SRI DHANARAM CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT: #45, 5TH FLOOR, M.S. LANE, KUMBARPET MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002.
4. SRI GOVIND CHOUDHARY S/O. GORURAMJI CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT: #65, 1ST FLOOR, KUMBARPET MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI MOHAN M.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU – 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23/04/2018 IN WRIT PETITION 17006/2018 AND 17130/2018 [LB-BBMP] PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT TO BE GRANTED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T Though this appeal is listed to consider I.A.No.1/18, which is filed seeking condonation of delay of 114 days in filing the appeal, we nevertheless heard learned counsel on merits of the matter.
2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 23/04/2018, in W.P.Nos.17006/2018 & 17130/2018.
The grounds urged for setting aside the impugned order are that, the order passed by the learned single Judge is not sustainable in law and on facts. At the time of purchasing the suit schedule property, there was no impugned order passed by the Hon’ble single Judge. Respondent No.2, knowing fully well about the property in possession and enjoyment of the appellants as absolute owners, has failed to change the khata in the name of the appellants. Learned single Judge has failed to consider and appreciate the case on merits. The property in question is not subjected to interim orders passed by the Hon’ble single Judge during the purchase of the schedule property. At present, there is no prohibitory order to change the khata in the name of the appellants. Learned single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that RFA.No.1897/2017 is pending consideration and hence, the change of khata in the name of appellants would be subject to outcome of the said proceeding.
3. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there is need for change of khata to safeguard the interest of the appellants as they are the bona fide purchasers of the property.
4. As could be seen from the impugned order, passed by the learned single Judge, it is observed that respondent No.2 has issued an endorsement dated 28/12/2017 (Annexure – C), which clearly depicts that O.S.No.8250/2014 filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of specific performance against the original owner from whom these petitioners have purchased the property in question has been dismissed and against which RFA.No.1897/2017 has been preferred and the same is pending consideration before this Court. It is further stated that the request of the petitioners therein for effecting change of khata shall be considered after disposal of RFA.No.1897/2017, which is pending before this Court. It is also not in dispute that these petitioners were the subsequent purchasers of the property are impleaded as necessary parties. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, awaiting the decision of RFA.No.1897/2017 pending before this Court is justifiable. As such, the endorsement dated 28/12/2017 issued by respondent No.2 cannot be on fault.
5. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants clearly goes to show that respondent No.2 had issued an endorsement stating that “RFA.No.1897/2017 is pending consideration hence katha in the name of the petitioners cannot be transferred until orders are passed.” Considering the said aspect, learned single Judge has observed that there is no necessity for changing khata at this stage, since the matter is already pending consideration before this Court in RFA.No.1897/2017. Thus, we are of the view that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeals, I.A.No.1/2018 also stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S*