Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Jayant Banerji, Umesh M Adiga, JJ.
K.R. Subramani, S/O Late Ramachandra Reddy - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Rep By Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1063 of 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
Decided On : 17-09-2025
For the Appellant :Sri. Y.R. Sadhashiva Reddy, Senior Counsel, For Sri.Rahul S.Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri.K.Raghavendra, Aga Sri.K.V. Ramachandra, Advocate
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate civil rights over immovable property; disputes must be resolved in Civil Courts.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 - Intra Court Appeal - A writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition regarding title and revenue records of disputed property.
(B) Jurisdiction of Revenue Courts - Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide civil rights over immovable property, which must be determined in Civil Courts.
(C) Presumption of possession - Revenue records are not documents of title and only create a presumption of ownership. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
Appellant claims ownership of property based on a 1953 sale deed, while respondent claims through inheritance. The Deputy and Single Judge decisions upheld respondent's title due to lack of evidence, leading to the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The appeal is devoid of merits as the appellant failed to establish his title in the Civil Court context.
Issues: Whether the Revenue Authority can determine ownership and how long it takes to challenge revenue record entries.
Ratio Decidendi: Revenue courts cannot ascertain titles over immovable properties; these matters must be referred to Civil Courts.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disputed property ownership and title claims. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on ownership and validity of title. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court’s analysis on property and title disputes. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. jurisdiction limitations of revenue courts. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion on appeal merits and court orders. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
UMESH M ADIGA, J.
This intra court appeal filed under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order passed by the learned single judge dated 20.09.2022 in W.P.No.17395/ 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR).
2. It is the contention of the appellant that survey No.240 of Kadenahalli Village, Byrakur Hobli, Mulabagilu Taluk of Kolar District was totally measuring 5 acres 36 guntas. Out of that, the disputed property is 2 acre 35 guntas, which is standing in the name of respondent No.5 herein. Since there is no dispute in respect of remaining extent of 2 acre 35 guntas of the said property, which was succeeded by the appellant from his ancestors and others, it is not necessary to consider the said property in detail in the present writ appeal. 3. According to the contention of the appellant, one Venkatamuniyappa was the owner of Survey No.240/1 to an extent of 2 acres 35 guntas. Earlier it was part of survey No.240 and subsequently after phoding (sub-division) it was given survey No.240/1. The said Venkatamuniyappa was father of the respondent No.5. The said Venkatamuniyappa had two wives, by name Munivenkatamma and Chengamma. According to contention of the appellant, both Munivenkatamma and Chengamma together executed a registered sale deed dated 27.05.1953 in favour of one Smt.Venkatamma, wife of Chowdappa that is great grandmother of appellant. Thereafter, the family of the appellant became absolute owner of total extent of 5 acres 30 guntas in survey No.240.
4. It was further contended by the appellant that respondent No.5 had no right over the said property, however, the respondent got his name entered in the revenue records. The appellant herein challenged the said mutation entry before the learned Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division in a case RA.No.671/2016-17. After contest, the said appeal was allowed and the order of the revenue entry standing in the name of respondent No.5, set aside and concerned was directed to enter the name of appellant in the revenue records of the disputed property survey No.240/1 measuring 2 acres 35 guntas. That order was challenged by the respondent No.5 herein before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District in Case No. R.A.P.No.72/2019. The learned Deputy Commissioner after hearing, vide order dated 27.04.2022 set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.11.2019, that is produced in Annexure-K. That order was challenged before the learned single judge in WP No. 17395/2022 (KLR-RR/SUR). The learned single judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition by impugned order dated 20.09.2022. That is under challenge in the present appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates appearing for appellant as well as respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
6. The learned counsel for appellant argued in line with the contention raised in the appeal memo. He further contended that Smt.Munnivenkatamma and Smt.Chengamma had executed registered sale deed dated 27.05.1953 in favour of great grand mother of appellant by name Venkatamma. Appellant has succeeded the said property and actual and physical possession of the same. The Deputy Commissioner did not consider the said materials placed on record and erroneously allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.5. The learned single Judge did not consider these materials and erred in not setting aside this order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. He further contends that the learned Assistant Commissioner has rightly held that appellant has been owner of the said property by virtue of the said sale deed. Therefore, findings of the learned Deputy Commissioner as well a
