T VENKATACHALA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court with the following prayers:

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the land in respect of which the entry has now been mutated in favour of 5th Respondent has been in his possession and that thereafter the said entry could not have been directed to be made in his favour. He also notifies to the Court a declaration Suit in O.S.NO.186/2014 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Maluru. Learned counsel argues that after 41 years, an entry of the kind could not have been mutated to the prejudice of his client.

(3.) Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents argues that the entries have mutated to accord with the description of the property in the subject registered Sale Deed dtd. 8/10/1964; not even an inch of the land comprised in the Sale Deed is touched by the subject entry; this mutation has been made at the instance of the vendor of the Petitioner pointing out that he had not sold the other part of the land to which present entry relates, he over achingly adds that the declaration suit has nothing to do with the validity of the entry in question, only the title suits being the contemplation of proviso to Sec. 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.