B. RAMAIAH Vs. B. NAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of the registered gift deed dtd. 18/1/1982 executed by the mother of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in respect of land bearing Sy.No.123A/1 measuring 6.20 acres situated at Korlagundi Village, Bellary Taluk. Thereafter, the 4th respondent - Tahasildar by order dtd. 17/4/2002 dismissed the dispute raised by the 1st respondent and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to agitate their claim.

(2.) Pursuant to the order of the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent filed OS No.181/2002 before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking for declaration of title in respect of the land to an extent of 3.10 acres. The jurisdictional Civil Court after examining the revenue records dismissed the suit filed by the 1st respondent. Pursuant to the dismissal of the suit, the 1st respondent filed an appeal under Sec. 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent by order dtd. 6/5/2006 taking into account the dismissal of the suit filed by the 1st respondent and also the conduct of the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the 1st respondent preferred a revision petition under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The 6th respondent by order dated Nil February, 2007 allowed the appeal directing the Tahsildar to mutate the name of the petitioner and the 1st respondent jointly in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in pursuance of the registered gift deed executed by his mother. Hence, he submits that in the absence of challenge to the said gift deed by the 1st respondent, the 6th respondent committed an error in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the judgment and decree dtd. 28/11/2019 passed in OS No.244/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari wherein the claim of the 1st respondent for partition and separate possession of his share in the land in question is also dismissed.