: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BENCH

ON THE 29 th DAY OF JULY 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

WRIT APPEAL NO.100493/2015 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

1. SANNATAMAPPA PAVADEPPA KARADIGUDDA, AGE 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O , TAL. , DIST. BELAGAVI.

LAXMAN, S/O MALLAPPA KARADIGUDDA, SINCE DECEASED. BY HIS LR

2. HANAMANT, S/O LAXMAN KARADIGUDDA, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O OBALAPUR, TQL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. .. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A.G. MULAWADMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL DIVISION, DIST. BELAGAVI. : 2 :

3. THE TAHASHILDAR, BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI.

4. VASUDHA, W/O VASANT JOSHI, AGE 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O SHRI B.V. JOSHI PLOT NO.34, TRIMURTHI APARTMENT, MAHARSHI ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI.

5. SHRI ASHOK, S/O HUCHAPPA SAJJAN AGE 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NAVIPETH, RAMDURG TALUKA, DIST. BELAGAVI. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.S.PATIL, AGA FOR RESPONDENT-STATE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15/06/2015 PASSED IN W.P.NO.105128/2015(KLR- RR/SUR) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND THIS WRIT APPEAL BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 15/06/2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.105128/2015, the writ petitioners have filed this appeal.

2. The learned Single Judge considering the contention

was of the view that there was no prima facie case or source of : 3 : title, as contemplated under Section 128 of the Land Revenue Act has been made out in order to enter the names in the revenue records; that the writ court cannot interfere on the said fact.

Moreover, a suit has been filed by the petitioners which is pending adjudication and therefore any decree to be passed in the said suit would be binding on the parties. On these grounds, the petition was dismissed.

3. On hearing learned counsel we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. When the lis is pending consideration in a suit filed before the trial Court, necessarily, the decree to be passed by the trial Court would be binding on all the parties. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for any interference. However, what is being contended is, during the pendency of the suit, the property is likely to be sold due to change of name in the mutation records. If, that were to be so, the appellants are always at liberty to seek an appropriate order of injunction from the trial Court. : 4 :

Hence, interference of the appellate Court is wholly unwarranted.

Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE kmv