SUGUNA RAJKUMAR Vs. R RAJMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein purchased property bearing No. 63, Charles Cambell Road, Cox Town, bangalore (measuring 52' 6"x 80')' under registered Sale Deed 24. 5. 1985 executed by G B subramanyam Setty. She was registered as the Khatedar of the said property in the records of the corporation of City of Bangalore, vide Katha Transfer Endorsement dated 3. 8. 1997.

(2.) A sale deed was executed in favour of the first respondent 23. 2. 1988 by the City Civil Court, bangalore (in execution of a decree for specific performance passed in O. S. No. 494/1964 against b. Lakshiminarayana Setty) conveying the said property to him. On the basis of the said sale deed, the first respondent applied to the Bangalore City Corporation on 3. 1. 1989 for registering the Katha in his name. As the katha was not transferred, for nearly six months, the first respondent filed WP No. 21427/1989 seeking a direction to the Corporation to transfer the katha of the said property in his name. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 22. 6. 1990 allowed the said Writ Petition and directed the Corporation to consider the application of the first respondent for transfer of katha within two months from the date of receipt of the said order. In pursuance of it, the Corporation considered the request of the first respondent for transfer of katha and after hearing the counsel for first respondent and appellant and recording their statement, issued the following endorsement dated 22. 12. 1990:" the records produced by both the parties were examined and found that Smt. Suguna Rajkumar has purchased the property through Registered Sale Deed vide No. 268/85-86, dated 10. 5. 1985 executed by Sri Subramanyam and others and katha has been registered in the name of Smt. Suguna Rajkumar on the basis of the sale deed produced to the office. Subsequently, Sri. Rajmal has purchased the said property through Court vide registered No. 3538/87-88 dated 23. 12. 1988. This clearly shows that there is a dispute regarding the title over the property. Smt. Suguna rajkumar's sale deed is earlier to that of Sri. Rajmal. Since the katha has already been made in the name of Smt. Suguna Rajkumar, in the absence of any power to review the orders as per the decision of High Court (and) the matter is in the name of Civil Litigation. Therefore Sri. Rajmal is hereby informed to approach competent Court and get the dispute settled over the property and produce the judgment and decree in his name for taking further action in the matter. "

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the first respondent (Rajmal) filed WP No. 8665/1991 for quashing the said endorsement dated 22. 10. 1990 and seeking a direction to the Corporation to transfer the katha in regard to the said property to his name. Suguna Rajkumar, the appellant herein was the second respondent and Bangalore City Corporation was the first respondent in the said Writ petition. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 13. 6. 2001 quashing the endorsement dated 22. 12. 1990 and directing the Bangalore City corporation to "make the Khatha" in the name of the first respondent herein. The decision is based on the findings recorded on the three questions formulated by the learned Single Judge in his order. The three points and the findings are extracted below: question Finding