IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30165 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. T.A. SIDDARAJU SON OF LATE APPAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATHRU MAMATHA, 1^ST LINK ROAD, MARUTHY NAGAR, THUMAKURU-572 103 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIRAM ADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N. SURESHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, Digitally signed by BANGALORE-560 001 SUMA Location:

2. THE COMMISSIONER, HIGH COURT OF THUMAKURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, KARNATAKA THUMAKURU, PIN CODE-572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR ACCEPTANCE OF KHATHA WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES AS REQUESTED UNDER THE APPLICATION DATED 16.03.2024, ANNEXURE-D.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for acceptance of Khatha with respect to the properties as requested under the application dated 16.03.2024 vide Annexure 'D' to the petition.

2. The petitioner claims that his father had filed O.S.No.576/1963 before the Court of the Additional Munsiff at Tumkur for a declaration that the sale of the suit properties by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 by a deed dated 26.06.1961 was ab initio void and did not confer any title on defendant No.1 in the suit. The said suit was decreed on 12.01.1968 and it was declared that the sale in favour of defendant No.1 by the defendant No.2 did not bind the half share of the plaintiff / father of the petitioner herein, in the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.1 in the suit filed R.A.No.54/1968, which was allowed in part and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring that the plaintiff in the suit is entitled to half share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties was confirmed and the suit of the plaintiff with regard to item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties was dismissed. Based upon this decree, the father of the petitioner filed F.D.P No.9/2015, in terms of which the property bearing old Municipal Nos.1266 and 1267 and present Nos.1382 and 1383 measuring East to West 136 feet and North to South 122 feet fell to the share of the father of the petitioner.

3. In the meanwhile, Mr. R.S. Prabhudev Aradhya –

sibling of respondent No.3 in FDP No.09/2015 filed a suit in O.S. No.557/2024 against the petitioners in FDP No.9/2015, before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tumakuru where the Trial Court in terms of the order dated 26.03.2025, directed both the parties therein to maintain status quo till the next date. Likewise, this Court in M.F.A No.3341/2025 filed by Mr. Prabhudev Aradhya, in terms of the order dated 02.05.2025 while allowing I.A. No.1/2025, granted an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, henchmen or anybody claiming for and on behalf of respondents therein from interfering with the appellant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule properties, till the next date of hearing. The respondent No.2 did not enter the name of the petitioner in the property register in respect of the properties as requested in his application dated 16.03.2024 given to the respondent No.2 vide Annexure ‘D’ to the petition based on the above proceedings and also taking into account the objections filed against the registration of the khata in the name of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner being a beneficiary of a decree in F.D.P No.9/2015 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Tumakuru, o