NARASIMHA S/O NARAYAN ADI vs SHRINIVAS S/O NARASIMHA ADI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

WRIT PETITION NO. 101432 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

NARASIMHA S/O NARAYAN ADI,
AGED. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. T.S.S. ROAD, SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581401.


…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:



1. SHRINIVAS S/O NARASIMHA ADI,
AGED 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATGAR, TQ. BHATKAL,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581320.

2. REVENUE INSPECTOR,
MAVALLI, BHATKAL,
TQ. BHATKAL,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA 581320.

3. TAHASILDAR BHATKAL,
TQ. BHATKAL,
DISTRICT. UTTARA KANNADA 581320.

4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BHATKAL,
SUB DIVISION BHATKAL, TQ. BHATKAL,
DISRICT. UTTARA KANNADA 581320.

5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581301.





BHARATHI
H M


Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: high court of
karnataka, dharwad bench
Date: 2026.10.30 14:20:28
+0530
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R2 TO R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER DATED 04.11.2019 PASSED BY 5TH

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDING NO.RB/RTR/CR-21/2018-19 MARKED
AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

ORAL ORDER

1. This is a classic case of indifference of the
revenue authorities in not making entries in the revenue
records to abide by a final adjudication by a civil court in a
final decree arising out of a partition suit. The petitioner is
aggrieved by the entry in the register of mutation at
Annexure-C. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that
1-19-04-00 acres of land in Survey No.429/1B of Koppa
Village, Bhatkal Taluk has been wrongly entered in the
register of mutation at Annexure-C as joint holding along
with Srinivasa S/o. Narasimha Adi who is respondent No.1
in this Writ Petition.

2. I have heard Sri Vishwanath Hegde, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri. J. S. Shetty, learned

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Nandini B.
Somapur, learned AGA for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. The brief facts as are relevant for the limited
purposes of this Writ Petition are as follows :

3.1 There was a civil suit in O.S.No.134/2001
between the family members of the petitioner and
respondent No.1. That was adjudicated by the Court of the
Senior Civil Judge, Honnavara and a preliminary decree
was passed.
3.2 After the preliminary decree, at the instance of
the parties, a final decree was passed in FDP No.5/2009
on 14.03.2011.

3.3 The final decree is produced as Annexure-D to
the Writ Petition and it records that the parties had been
put in possession of their respective shares as allotted to
them under the final decree by way of a Commissioner's
report and survey sketch. The Commissioner's report and
survey sketch were made part of the final decree.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


3.4 While describing the properties that were
subject matter of the suit, the civil Court, in the final
decree has clearly noted that an extent of 1-19-4 acres of
land in Survey No.429/1 was allotted to respondent No.1
Srinivas s/o. Narasimha Adi. Likewise, an extent of 1-19-4
in Survey No.429/1 was allotted to the present petitioner.
As recorded above, the parties were put in possession of
their respective shares by virtue of the Commissioner's
report and survey sketch.

3.5 The parties executed a further registered deed
of partition as per the final decree passed by the civil
Court. This registered deed of partition is dated
18.06.2011. The document incorporates the final decree
and the exercise of identifying and putting the parties in
possession of their respective shares as part of the
partition deed.

3.6 It is the admitted position between the parties
that after the final decree and the registered partition as
stated above, on 05.09.2011 respondent No.1, Sri

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


Srinivasa sold his share of the property, namely, 1-19-4
acres of land in Sy.No.429/1A in favour of a third party
purchaser. That purchaser is not a party to these
proceedings because no relief is claimed against him.
3.7 What is significant to note from the sale deed
executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of the
purchaser is that the property sold by him is clearly
identified as bearing Sy.No.429/1A, measuring an extent
of 1-19-4 acres.

3.8 It is the submission of Sri Vishwanath Hegde,
learned counsel for the petitioner that after the final
decree and the registered partition among the parties, for
purposes of better identification the respective shares of
respondent No.1 and the petitioner were identified as
Sy.Nos.429/1A and 429/1B . This position is not disputed
by Sri J.S. Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
This factual position is also corroborated by the description
of the property sold by way of the registered sale deed at
Annexure-F. Based on this position, what emerges is that

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


the portion of land in Sy.No.429/1 that fell to the share of
the petitioner was re-numbered as Sy.No.429/1B. It is the
mutation in the revenue records in respect of
Sy.No.429/1B that is the subject matter of this petition as
recorded above.


4. The Tahasildar caused the entry in respect of
Sy.No.429/1B to an extent of 1-19-04-00 as joint entry in
the names of Srinivasa s/o. Narsimha Adi (respondent
No.1) and Narsimha S/o. Narayan Adi (petitioner). This
entry in the register of mutations at Annexure-C showing
joint holding by respondent No.1 and the petitioner is an
error because this is at variance with the final decree and
also the registered partition incorporating the terms of the
final decree.


5. The petitioner challenged the entry in the
mutation register at Annexure-C by filing an appeal under
1
Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

1
Hereinafter referred to ‘KLR Act’, for short

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


before the Assistant Commissioner. By his order, dated
05.12.2013 (Annexure-B), the Assistant Commissioner
dismissed the appeal on the ground that there are
registered documents and that the parties had to get their
rights adjudicated before a civil court. The Assistant
Commissioner concluded that the revenue authorities did
not have the jurisdiction and it was only the civil court
which could decide on the legality or tenability of a
registered document.

6. It is apposite to note that the approach of the
Assistant Commissioner is one of missing the woods for
the trees. The Assistant Commissioner failed to notice that
the genuineness, tenability or validity of the registered
documents was never in question. All that the petitioner
sought was that the entries in revenue records should
abide by the final adjudication that took place by way of
the final decree dated 14.03.2011.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


7. The error committed by the Assistant
Commissioner was perpetuated by the Deputy
Commissioner in a revision filed by the petitioner herein
under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act, 1964. By his order at
Annexure-A, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the
appeal by recording the following findings :
“After the perusal of lower court records and
written argument or petitioner in reveals that
the suit property is the ancestoral property of
petitioner and respondent No.1. It is evident
from the records that mutation entry No.
160/10-11 is mutated as per the registered
“Vantani Patra” Respodent No.1 sold the land
to respondent No. 2 through registered sale
deed. Accordingly Mutation Entry 43/11-12
was certified. Assistant Commissioner Bhatkal
in his order clearly stated that Revenue Court
have no jurisdiction to question the validity of
the registered documents. It is to be left to
the jurisdiction of the court. So it is not
necessary to interfere with the order of
Assistant Commissioner Bhatkal.”

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


8. The petitioner has approached this Court having
failed before both the authorities below.

9. On a close examination of the records and after
hearing parties, it is clear that not only allotment of shares
but possession in respect of their respective shares has
attained finality once adjudication of the partition suit
reached a culmination by way of the final decree dated
14.03.2011. Thereafter, the parties have paid stamp duty
and executed a registered partition deed making the final
decree as a part of the partition deed. The parties have
gone further ahead and transacted with regard to their
respective shares. This is evident from the fact that
respondent No.1 has sold his share in Sy.No.429/1 (later
renumbered as Sy.No.429/1A) by way of the registered
sale deed at Annexure-F.


10. When the civil court has finally adjudicated on
the disputes and the adjudication has reached a final
conclusion by way of the final decree passed by the civil

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


Court, the revenue authorities have no discretion to refuse
to make entries in the revenue records in terms of the
final adjudication by the civil court. Section 128 of the KLR
Act. Provides that a person acquiring a right by
succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase,
mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any right may inform
the revenue authorities. In accordance with the other
provisions of Chapter XI of the Act, the revenue
authorities shall make or alter entries in the record of
rights. Although the decree of a civil court is not expressly
mentioned in Section 128, the phrase “or otherwise” is
wide enough to include the decree of a civil court which
bestows a right on a person.

11. Further, Section 132(3) provides that where a
civil suit has been disposed of, on intimation by the court,
the revenue authorities shall cause the entries to be
made in accordance with the decree or decision of
the court. The proviso to Section 135 is also relevant in

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


this context. When the right of a person is denied by
another in terms of entries in the revenue records, such
person may get a declaration of his right from a civil court
2
under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and the
entry in the record or register shall be amended in
accordance with any such declaration .

12. A suit for partition, stricto sensu, may not
appear to be one for declaration of rights under Chapter VI
of the SRA. Nonetheless, by the very nature of the suit, a
civil court does declare the rights and shares of parties in
partible joint property while allotting shares to them. In
this context, the provisions of Order XX Rule 18(1) of the
Code of Civil Procedure are pertinent:
“ 18. Decree in suit for partition of property
or separate possession of a share therein .-Where
the Court passes a decree for the partition of property
or for the separate possession of a share therein, then,-

(1) if and in so far as the decree relates to an
estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the
Government, the decree shall declare the rights of
the several parties interested in the property , but
shall direct such partition or separation to be made by
the Collector, or any gazetted subordinate of the
Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance

2
Hereinafter referred to ‘SRA’, for short

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


with such declaration and with the provisions of section
54;”
(emphasis supplied)
13. It is pertinent to note that Section 34 of SRA
which is in Chapter VI contemplates a suit for a declaration
regarding any right as to any property . This phrase is
capable of admitting a decree for partition inasmuch as the
court does declare the rights of the parties in joint
property while directing partition.


14. A combined reading of Section 128, Section
132(3) and the proviso to Section 135 of KLR Act leaves
no manner of doubt that a decree in a suit for partition is
binding on the revenue authorities. Once there is a
declaration of the inter se rights of parties in lands, the
revenue authorities are bound to make the entry in the
record or register and they are bound to amend the entry
in the record or register in accordance with the declaration
made by the civil court.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


15. In view of the settled legal position and the
indisputable facts, the entry made as joint holding in
Annexure-C in respect of Sy.No.429/1B is plainly
erroneous. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional
Authority ought to have corrected this plain error. The
Appellate Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner
and the Revisional Authority, namely, the Deputy
Commissioner having failed to exercise the jurisdiction
vested in them, this Court has to step in and rectify the
mistake committed by the Revenue Authorities to the
extent of setting aside the erroneous orders.


16. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the
orders at Annexures-A and B and the entry in respect of
Sy.No.429/1B at Annexure-C deserve to be set aside.


17. Resultantly, the following order is made:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17233
WP No. 101432 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020163122021


(ii) The entry in the register of mutation at
Annexure-C insofar as it relates to
Sy.No.429/1B showing the petitioner's name
jointly with that of respondent No.1 is set
aside.

(iii) The order of the Assistant Commissioner at
Annexure-B is set aside.


(iv) The order of the Deputy Commissioner at
Annexure-A is also set aside.

(v) The authorities are directed to enter the
name of the petitioner in respect of
Sy.No.429/1B in accordance with the final
decree dated 14.03.2011, the Registered
Partition Deed dated 18.06.2011 while
taking note of the Registered Sale Deed
dated 05.09.2011.

No order as to costs.



Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA)
JUDGE
NAA
CT:SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 57