The disputed title and possession of joint family property should be decided by the Civil Court, and the Revenue Authorities are obligated to effect katha change pursuant to a registered conveyance, but the entries in the records of rights do not determine actual possession and enjoyment.

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—These writ petitions filed seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 30.7.1999 at Annexure 'B' and the order of the 1st Respondent-Deputy Commissioner dated 14.9.2000 at Annexure 'C'.

2. According to the Petitioners, the lands bearing survey numbers 5/1C, 77/2, 80/1, 80/3 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas, 1 acre 35 guntas, 1 acre 31 guntas, and 2 acres 37 guntas respectively, situated in Singapur village of Shiggaon are the joint properties of the Petitioners and his uncle one Sri Channabasappa. After the demise of his uncle Channabasappa, his wife Smt. Channabasavva succeeded to the estate of her husband in the aforesaid lands. One Sri Shivashankara Basalingappa Hombaradi, who is the Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 30646 of 2000 claiming to be the Power of Attorney of Smt. Channabasavva sold her half share in the lands in favour of the 3rd Respondent and after his death, the Respondent 3(a), (f) shown as his Legal representatives have succeeded to the estate of the deceased 3rd Respondent.

3. It also reveals that, a civil suit was filed by the Petitioner against her aunt Smt. Channabasavva in O.S. No. 576 of 1994 on the file of Civil Judge Junior Division for declaration of title and possession in respect of survey Numbers 80/1 and 80/3 as exclusive properties. In the said suit, the compromise was entered into between the Petitioner here in and his aunt Smt. Channabasavva and Smt. Channabasavva gave up all her rights in respect of the aforesaid four lands, without claiming any right or title in it.

4. Even before the compromise was entered into, the sale of the extent of half share of Smt. Channabasavva in the aforesaid lands are sold in favour of the 3rd Respondent-3, who on the strength of the sale deed, made request to the Revenue Authorities for katha entries in his favour and to show his name as joint kathedar along with the Petitioner and his request came to be allowed.

5. Smt. Channabasavva has also filed the Writ Petition in Writ Petition No. 30646 of 2000 against the heirs of purchaser who are described as the legal representatives of the 3rd Respondent in the present petition and who are also the parties in Writ Petition No. 30645 of 2000. Smt. Channabasavva has claimed that the sale made in favour of the deceased 3rd Respondent Saannaiah Mattad is illegal and that his name cannot be shown in the revenue records in respect of the aforesaid lands.

6. In so far as the claim of the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 30465 of 2000 is concerned, they do not appear to have any locus-standi to file the petition, since by virtue of sale deed executed by the Power of Attorney of Smt. Channabasavva she has lost all the rights and interest in the properties. Even otherwise, by virtue of giving up of her rights in the compromise decree in favour of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30645 of 2000 also, she has lost all the rights and interest in the property. Therefore, Smt. Channabasavva had no right in the properties as on the date of Writ Petition No. 30465 of 2000.

7. The second Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30646 of 2000 is incidentally, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30645 of 2000. It was strenuously contended by the counsel for the Petitioner that, the property in question being the joint family property, the sale of the property even if it takes place, the purchaser has no right of joint possession and has no right to have joint katha in his name. In support of his contention, relied on the ruling of this Court rendered in the case of Basagouda Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi Sub-Division, Chikodi, District Belgaum and Others, ILR (1999) KAR 1484. The facts in the said case disclose that, the rights in joint property was sold by one of the members of the family, the purchaser made an application before the Tahsildar, who on the request of the purchaser sub-divided the lands to the extent of lands purchased by the purchaser given a separate survey