R.M. PUSHPA Vs. BRUHAT BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 1-4-2004 passed by the respondent 2 in M.R. No. 105/2004-05. The petitioner is in furtherance thereto seeking that the khatha be entered based on the judgment passed in R.F.A. No. 206 of 1997. The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing Sy. No. 43 of Yeshwanthpur Village which is now within Ward No. 7 of Yeshwanthpur originally belonged to Smt. Lakshmamma i.e., the mother-in-law of the petitioner. In that regard, initially Smt. Lakshmamma had filed a suit in O.S. No. 4553 of 1998 seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the said property. Though the suit was initially dismissed, an appeal in R.F.A. No. 206 of 1997 was filed. During the subsistence of the appeal, Smt. Lakshmamma died and the legal representatives including the petitioner had come on record and thereafter the appeal was allowed and a declaration had been granted that the legal representatives through Smt. Lakshmamma have acquired right to the said property. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner contends that the husband of the petitioner being one of the legal representative was entitled to the property and therefore the petitioner has also claimed right in respect of the same.

(2.) The grievance put forth in the instant petition is that the respondent 3 who is the wife of Sri B.R. Nanjundappa i.e. the brother of the husband of the petitioner has illegally secured the revenue entry in her name. It is therefore contended that such revenue entry cannot be sustained. The petitioner in that regard had filed a review petition as contemplated under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The Reviewing Authority had dismissed the said review petition. When the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 4200 of 2009, this Court was of the view that since the review petition filed was beyond the period of three years as contemplated under the provisions, the authority was justified in rejecting the same. However, an observation has been made by this Court that the merits of the decision rendered therein in any event would not bind the parties as it was without jurisdiction when it was beyond time. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is presently before this Court assailing the very entry made in favour of the respondent 3 herein vide M.R. No. 105/2004-05, which is impugned at Annexure-B to the petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said mutation entry made in favour of the respondent 3 would contend that the Revenue Authorities were not justified in accepting the claim made by the respondent 3, more particularly when the petitioner is claiming under a judgment passed in R.F.A. No. 206 of 1997. It is therefore contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the revenue entry which has been obtained in such manner cannot be allowed to be retained. If at all the respondent 3 claims any right, it is for the respondent 3 to establish the same before a appropriate forum. Hence, it is contended that as per the right declared in favour of the husband of the petitioner in R.F.A. No. 206 of 1997, the revenue entries would have to be maintained. It is therefore contended that petitioner is justified in seeking for setting aside of the revenue entries.