IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.29028 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. Sri K.Gangarajaiah S/o. Late Kemplaiah, Aged about 49 years 2. Sri K.Chikkakempaiah W/o. Late Kemplaiah, Aged about 55 years 3. Smt.Hanumakka W/o. Late Ramaiah, Aged about 70 years 4. Sri V.Munirajaiah S/o. Late Veerabhadraiah, Aged about 61 years 5. Sri Narayanaswamy S/o. Late Veerabhadraiah, Aged about 59 years 6. Sri Narasegowda S/o. Late Marikempaiah, Aged about 83 years All are residing at Mallasandra Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District – 560 062 … Petitioners (By Sri R.Nataraj, Advocate) AND:
NIL … Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records in O.S.No.65/2018 from the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nelamangala and set aside the order dated 20.10.2018 and consequently to dispose off the suit in terms of the compromise petition dated 05.10.2018 Annexure-C.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Petitioners being the plaintiffs and defendants in O.S.No.65/2018 for a decree of declaration & injunction are knocking at the doors of writ court for laying a challenge to the order dated 20.10.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-C, whereby the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Nelamangala has rejected their compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC 1908.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the impugned order being contrary to law is bereft of justice; the suit was for declaration & injunction filed against the 6th petitioner herein who was the sole defendant; they having amicably settled the matter, had moved the compromise petition; the Court below could not have refused to record the same on the sole ground that the Khata was mutated in the name of plaintiffs and the defendant only to the extent of 6 acres 22 guntas, whereas the total extent mentioned in the compromise petition is 6 acres 33 guntas in Sy.No.41; he further submits that entries in the revenue records do not have title value; they have only presumptive value and they need to be changed in terms of the decree of civil court.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the petition papers, this Court grants relief to the petitioners for the following reasons:
(i) suit in O.S.No.65/2018 was filed by petitioner nos.
1 to 5 against petitioner no.6, who being related to each other are residing in the same village; they having amicably settled the matter had moved the compromise petition seeking a decree in terms thereof; ordinarily law favours amicable settlement of lis;
(ii) the version of the Court below that as per the Khata the suit land in Sy.No.41/1 ad measures 6 acres 22 guntas excluding the kharab and therefore the compromise petition mentioning 6 acres 33 guntas cannot be entertained, appears to be too far fetched; after all, the entries in the revenue records have only presumptive value and they cannot be construed as title values; it is needless to mention that the parties can have the property surveyed for determining the actual extent and can make some adjustment on that basis; however this aspect has been lost sight of by the court below; and, (iii) the proviso to Sec.135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 provides for filing of declaratory suit in certain circumstances and makes the decree therein binding on the revenue authorities who shall make rectification of the entries to accord with the declaration made by the Civil Court as held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SPECIAL LAO vs. MALLIKARJUN, 1995(5) KLJ 41.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; the matter is remanded to the Court below for consideration afresh in accordance with law. It is open to the Court to hear the jurisdictional Revenue official in the matter, if need be sans impleadment.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY