SMT VASANTHAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the mutation entry in M.R. No. 36/1993 -94 as at Annexure -B to the petition. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the property bearing House list No. 81, khatha No. 1191/81 situate in Sy. No. 297 of Hesaraghatta village and Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The said site is said to have been granted in favour of late Narasimha Murthy under a 'Hakku Patra' issued by the Government. The said Sri Narasimha Murthy is stated to have died on 21.08.1992. The petitioner claims to be the wife of late Narasimha Murthy. It is in that context the petitioner claims to have succeeded to the said property and being entitled to have the revenue entries maintained in the name of the petitioner. Apart from contending with regard to the relationship, the petitioner also contends with regard to the manner in which the petitioner is said to be enjoying the property. Therefore, it is contended that the fourth respondent who has no manner of right could not have sought for change of revenue entries to the name of the fourth respondent. In that regard, it is also the case of the petitioner that the claim of the fourth respondent that he is the foster son of late Narasimha Murthy cannot be accepted inasmuch as the said late Narasimha Murthy left behind his wife and children.

(2.) THE fourth respondent on the death of late Narasimha Murthy claims right to the very same property in question. He contends that he is the foster son of late Narasimha Murthy and therefore he has succeeded to the property on the death of late Narasimha Murthy. Reference is also made to the nature of enjoyment of the property by contending that the fourth respondent had filed a suit in O.S. No. 1564/2008 against one Smt. Gowramma who was residing in the said premises. The said suit is stated to have been decreed and for execution of the same, the execution petition, has been levied in Ex. No. 3/2011. In that context, the fourth respondent claims right in respect of the property and seeks to justify the order at Annexure -A and the mutation carried out in favour of the fourth respondent. Insofar as the proceedings pending in the execution petition, there is no dispute and the petitioner herein has also filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC on having come to know about the such decree and has objected to the execution claiming right in respect of the said property.