IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.4708 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) AND WRIT APPEAL NOS.248-249 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI KESHAVALU NAIDU, SON OF LATE SRINIVASULU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.40/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, VENKATADAS ROAD, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 070 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI ANJINAPPA, SON OF NARAYANAPPA, RESIDENT OF A.K COLONY, GUNJUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560 087 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU -560 068.
3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER WHITE FIELD SUB-DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BENGALURU -560 076. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUMANGALA I. SIMIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI I.G. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2, RESPONDENT NO.3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.9894 OF 2016 AND 10393-394 OF 2016 DATED 27.10.2016.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.9894 of 2016 and 10393-394 of 2016 dismissing the writ petitions, the petitioner has filed these appeals.
2. The plea of the appellant is that his request for change of khatha was refused by the respondent – Corporation. Therefore, he filed the instant writ petitions. The learned Single Judge rejected the plea on the ground that in view of the pending dispute in O.S.No.1060 of 2007, necessarily the khatha will be subject to the result of the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the suit is for injunction. Therefore, there is no bearing in so far as the change of khatha is concerned.
4. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. On hearing the learned counsels, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The learned Single Judge considered the plaint in O.S.No.1060 of 2007. It was noticed that the suit is for injunction and not for declaration of title. However, what has been pleaded was that the vendor of the instant writ petitioner is defendant No.1; that the right of the said vendor has been questioned by the plaintiffs in the said suit with regard to sale of the property in question. Therefore, even though the validity of the sale deed in favour of the present writ petitioner has not been questioned, it cannot be said that the title is clear of any suspicion.
6. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge declined to exercise discretion. We do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order. When the title itself is in doubt, the Corporation cannot be held liable for not transferring the khatha. Until and unless there is a clear and unquestioned title, the question of transferring the khatha would not arise for consideration. Hence, we find no good grounds for interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE MD