PUSHPAKAR M. Vs. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, LALBAGH, MANGALORE-3 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SRI HARSHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter is listed for orders, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this order. In this ease, the petitioner has called in question the endorsement at Annexure -C issued by the 1st respondent transferring the katha of petition schedule property in favour of the 2nd respondent.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that his father M. Karunakar was the owner of the petition schedule property. After the death of his father, M. Karunakar and he has an undivided share in the said property. Therefore, the Corporation should not have transferred the katha of the said property in favour of the 2nd respondent without notice to him.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of Sri M. Karunakar, who died on 20.10.2009. The ease put forth by the petitioner is that alter the death of Sri M. Karunakar he has undivided l/3rd share in the said property. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent contends that after the petitioner went out of the firm by taking his share, the firm was reconstituted. M. Karunakar and the 2nd respondent continued to be the partners of the firm. M. Karunakar bequeathed his share in the aforesaid property in favour of the 2nd respondent Thus, the 2nd respondent has become the absolute owner of the petition schedule property after the death of M. Karunakar. It is thus clear that there is a serious dispute relating to the property. It is well established that the revenue entries do not confer the title. Where a case involves disputed questions of fact, the aggrieved party has to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs because the right claimed by the petitioner is not capable of being established in a summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it requires a detailed examination of the evidence. The object of Article 226 is the enforcement and not the establishment of a right or title. It is true that katha of the property in question has been transferred in favour of the 2nd respondent without notice to the petitioner. No purpose will be served if the matter is remitted back to the first respondent because the parties have to resolve their dispute in a Civil Court. The 1st respondent is not competent to decide the title dispute between the parties. Therefore, I decline to entertain this writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. It is needless to say that the Corporation has to transfer the katha of the property in question in terms of the decree, which may be passed by the Civil Court. All the contentions are kept open. Since the writ petition is dismissed as above, Misc. W. No. 4508/2011 docs not survive for consideration. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.