RAMADASAIAH Vs. ADHYAKASHA ZILLA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the first respondent in Appeal No.2/2011-12 which is impugned at Annexure-M to the petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that the petitioners and respondents No.4 to 7 are related to each other. It is their case that one Sri H.Honnaiah was the original propositus of the family and he had two sons viz., Kajji Honnaiah and Dagaraiah. The petitioners claim to be the decendants of the branch of Honnaiah, while it is indicated that respondents No.4 to 7 are from the other branch. Considering that the petitioners claim that the property bearing No.437/1 was the joint family property, they are entitled to claim as joint owners of the said property is their case. It is in that regard, the petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the resolution of the panchayat and the entry of the name of respondent No.4 in the khatha register, preferred an appeal before the Adhyaksha, Taluk Panchayat assailing the said action. The Adhyaksha, Taluk Panchayat by the order dated 22.01.2011 had directed that the names of all the persons be entered in the khatha register. The fourth respondent claiming to be aggrieved by the same, had preferred an appeal before the Adhyaksha, Zilla Panchayat. The Adhyaksha, Zilla Panchayat by the order dated 23.11.2011 has directed that the khatha be entered in the name of the fourth respondent and the dimension of the property was also indicated to a larger extent than what the earlier claim had been made. It is in that circumstance the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the fourth respondent would strenuously contend that the Adhyaksha, Zilla Panchayat has considered all aspects of the matter and taking note of the fact that the fourth respondent is in possession of the property and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioners herein cannot claim right to the property, was of the view that the name of the fourth respondent is to be entered exclusively. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioners are not the members of the joint family and no claim could be made by the petitioners either under Honnaiah or under the subsequent branch of Dagaraiah. Therefore, the case of the petitioners that they also have a right in the property cannot be accepted. Learned counsel would contend that the documents relied on by the petitioners to point out that the fourth respondent had made an application seeking joint khatha entries is a fabricated document and the same would not grant any benefit to the petitioners and if the said document is disbelieved, there is no other document available to show that the petitioners have any right over the property. It is further contended that none other family member of either of the branches have made claim to the property and therefore, the claim made by the petitioners cannot be accepted.