CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.32368/2016 has filed this writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Writ Court. In the impugned order the Writ Court allowed the writ petition directing the revenue authorities to enter the name of Nagendrappa in the revenue records as the successor-in-interest of Gangamma as Gangamma died unmarried.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Writ Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under:

4. The petitioner claims to be the husband of Gangamma, whereas respondent No.5 denies that he is not the husband. There was no marriage between Gangamma as the petitioner was the husband of one Lakshmidevi and not Gangamma. As per the case put forth by the petitioner in the writ petition, the petitioner married to one Lakshmidevi. As there was no issues from the wedlock, wife Lakshmidevi brought her sister Gangamma as early in the year 2003 and asked the petitioner to marry her. However, the petitioner used to postpone the same, in view of his sentiments towards Lakshmidevi. But in view of her persistent request and on compulsion by the first wife (mentioned as senior wife), the petitioner agreed to marry Gangamma.

5. The said Gangamma in the year 2005 purchased two items of the properties, which are agricultural land in Sy.No.47/2 measuring 16 guntas and Sy.No.48/3 measuring, situated at Kamalapura Village, Sasvenahally Hobli, Honnali Taluk. Subsequent to the purchase of the properties under the registered sale deed dated 26.07.2005, name of Gangamma came to be entered in the RTC under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964 ('KLR Act' for short) vide M.R.No.5/2005-06. Thereafter in the year 2008 i.e., on 18.04.2008, petitioner married Gangamma as second wife. Gangamma after two years died due to serious illness on 17.01.2010.

6. The petitioner noticed that in the year 2006 itself, the respondent No.5 by giving false information before the revenue authorities got his name entered with respect to the agricultural land stated supra in M.R.No:INH.04/2006-07. The petitioner called the said M.R. in question before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner had set aside the M.R.No.INH.04/2006-07 and directed the Khata to be entered in the name of petitioner with respect to the lands stated supra.

7. Respondent No.5 taken the order in challenge before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition. The Deputy Commissioner after considering the rival submissions, directed the revenue authorities to enter in the joint name of respondent No.5 and the first wife of petitioner i.e., Lakshmidevi. The petitioner aggrieved by the same called in question the order before the Writ Court. The learned single judge passed an order allowing the writ petition, holding that in view of Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioner being the husband and survived his wife and relying on the death certificate produced in the writ petition vide Annexure-C, wherein the name of petitioner referred in the column No.7 as the husband and only on that ground set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and directed the revenue authorities to enter the name of petitioner. However, observing that the respondent No.5 may approach the Civil Court to establish that the Nagendrappa was not the husband of Gangamma. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge called in question in this writ appeal.

8. Heard, Sri.S.Sreevatsa, learned Senior counsel for Sri.Srinivasa, learned counsel for appellant and Sri.G.S.Aruna, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri.S.B.Halli, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

9. Sri.Sreevatsa, learned Senior counsel taking us through the petition averments submits that as per the admissions of the petitioner, (though it is denied by respondent No.5 that he is the husb