1

IN THE COURT OF AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM

CRP NO.135 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

1. ANANDI @ LAKSHMI W/O SHANKARNARAYANA BHAT

SINCE DECEASED REPTD BY LRS

1(a) GANAPATHI SHET, 45 YEARS, S/O LATE SHANKARNARAYANA BHAT

1(b) KRISHNA SHET, 46 YEARS, W/O SHANKARNARAYANA BHAT

1(c) JAYANTHI, 42 YEARS, D/O LATE SHANKARNARAYANA BHAT

1(d) ASHOK SHET, 40 YEARS, S/O LATE SHANKARNARAYANA BHAT

1(e) PUSHPA, 36 YEARS, D/O LATE SHANKARNARAYANA BHAT

1(f) VEENA, 32 YEARS, D/O LATE SHANKARNARAYANA BHAT

PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 1(F) ARE ALL R/AT MISSION SCHOOL ROAD, KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA. …. PETITIONERS

2

(BY SHRI. G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE KUNDAPURA TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPTD BY ITS CHIEF OFFCER, HAVING ITS OFFICE IN KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK & POST .

2. KALAVATHI @ PARVATHI, MAJOR, W/O SADASHIV SHET, R/AT KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK & POST.

3. VIJAYA SHET, 44 YEARS, D/O SADASHIV SHET, R/AT KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK & POST.

4. VINODA R. SHET, 65 YEARS, W/O RAGHURAM SHET. R/O VIBHUDHAPRAYA NAGAR, MANIPAL ROAD, INDRALI UDUPI.

5. JAYASHREE, 39 YEARS, D/O RAGHURAM SHET. R/O VIBHUDHAPRAYA NAGAR, UDUPI MANIPAL ROAD, INDRALI UDUPI.

6. GIRISH, 36 YEARS, D/O RAGHURAM BHAT. R/O VIBHUDHAPRAYA NAGAR, UDUPI MANIPAL ROAD, INDRALI UDUPI.

3

7. SHAILA SHREE, 32 YEARS, D/O RAGHURAM BHAT R/O VIBHUDHAPRAYA NAGAR, UDUPI MANIPAL ROAD, INDRALI UDUPI.

8. RATHNA, 75 YEARS, W/O MAHDAVA SHET, R/AT BALAKUDRU VILLAGE, , POST HANGARCUTTA.

9. KOGGA SHET, 70 YEARS, S/O SHESHA SHET. KUNDPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST.

10.MOHAN SHET, 66 YEARS, S/O SHESHA SHET, KUNDPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST.

11.SUNANDA, WIDOW OF LATE S. SHIVANANDA SANU, R/AT BAILAPPANAVARA NAGAR, HUBLI – 580 029.

12. RAMESH SHET, 50 YEARS, S/O SHANKARANARAYANA SHET. R/AT KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST.

13. RAMADAS SHET, 48 YEARS, S/O SHANKARANARAYANA SHET. R/AT KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST.

14. GOKULA SHET, 44 YEARS,

4

S/O SHANKARANARAYANA SHET. R/AT KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST.

15. MALATHI, 38 YEARS, D/O SHANKARANARAYANA SHET. R/AT KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST.

16. SATISHA, 37 YEARS, S/O SHANKARANARAYANA SHET R/AT KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST.

17. DINESH SHET, 45 YEARS, S/O SHANKARANARAYANA SHET. R/AT KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST.

18. VENKATESH SHET, 40 YEARS, S/O SHANKARANARAYANA SHET. R/AT KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST.

19. MANJUNATH SHET, 34 YEARS, S/O SADASHIV SHET R/AT KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST.

20. SRINIVAS SHET, 38 YEARS, S/O KOGA SHET. R/AT KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST.

21. BABU SHET, 34 YEARS, S/O KOGA SHET. R/AT KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST.

22. S.M. REVANKAR, 75 YEARS,

5

H/O SUMITHRA,

23. GANESH S. REVANKAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

24. KESHAVA S. REVANKAR, S/O SUMITHRA, 45 YEARS.

25. SATHYANARAYANA S. REVANKAR, S/O SUMITHRA, 36 YEARS,

26. RENUKA 42 YEARS, D/O SUMITHRA

27. SHOBA, D/O SUMITHRA

RESPONDENTS 22 TO 27 ARE R/AT OM NIVAS KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA EXTENSION, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ANNAPURNA BEVENJE & NAGARAJ M.M. ADVOCATES FOR R8 – ABSENT SHRI KUMAR & BHAT, ADV. FOR R9, R20, R21, R1 TO R4, R10, R14, R19, R22, R24, R25 ARE SERVED, R5 TO R7, R11 TO R-13, R16 TO R18 & R23, R26, R27 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, R-15 – DELETED)

CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.2.2010 PASSED IN R.A. NO.33/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KUNDAPURA, DISMSSING THE APPEAL ETC.

6

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Defendants 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 22 are in revision against judgment passed in R.A. No.33/2003, on the file of Fast Track Court, Kundapura, dismissing their appeal and confirming the judgment in

O.S.No.388/89 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Kundapura.

2. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Perused records in supplementation thereto.

3. Respondent no.1 – Kundapura Town Municipal

Council filed a suit in O.S.No.388/1989 against

Sadashiva Shet and others including the petitioners herein for a decree to recover municipal tax payable in respect of the properties described in ‘B’ schedule to the plaint from the year 1968-69 to 1978-79 in a sum of Rs. 19,013.73ps. The demand notice was issued to the 1 st defendant on 9.12.1978 and on 7.3.1979

7 through registered post, which was duly served on him. But he failed to pay the amount. They held him responsible as the Karta of the Hindu undivided family and in the suit they impleaded all as constituting a joint family. It also referred to a criminal case filed in

C.C.No.310/1977 against 1 st defendant for contravention of the provision of Section 381 of

Karnataka Municipalities Act, ( ‘Act’ for short) and sought for recovery of the amount.

4. The 1 st defendant entered contest and filed written statement denying entire averments in the plaint and declared openly he is not the manager of the family of which other members are said to be members. He referred to pendency of partition suit in

O.S.No.3/1980, in which the decision as to whether the defendants in the suit were entitled to share was under consideration.

5. The petitioners herein namely, Anandi @

Lakshmi, Ganapathi Shet, Krishna Shet, Jayanthi,

8

Ashok Shet, Pushpa and Veena are claiming to be the legal-heirs of one Shankarnarayana Bhat. According to them, the immovable properties described in the ‘B’ schedule to the plaint were the absolute properties of

1st petitioner – Anandi @ Lakshmi’s husband, who died intestate leaving behind her and his children.

According to the petitioners, the 1 st petitioner and defendants 12 to 17 and 19 to 22 including one Ashok

Shet are entitled to share in the ‘B’ schedule properties, whereas the other defendants who are respondents 2 to 27 in this revision are not entitled to any share in the properties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1 st respondent – Kundapura Town Municipal

Council has unjustifiably described Sadashiv Shet, the

1st defendant (since deceased) as the Karta of the

Hindu joint family of defendants 1 to 27 impleaded in the suit. He submits that except the petitioners, the other defendants though are related to them are not entitled to the share in the ‘B’ schedule properties. He

9 submits that the petitioners had made a detail statement to this effect through their statements, but the learned Civil Judge(Jr.Dn) and also the learned

Appellate Judge has unjustifiably rejected their defense. However, the learned petitioners counsel could not dispute that a suit for partition is filed by other defendants in O.S.No.3/1980 and the said suit is pending decision. In the suit, the plaintiff has sought for partition of the ‘B’ schedule properties dividing share amongst all the defendants in the present suit i.e. O.S. No.388/1989.

7. From the material records made available, it is quite clear that the 1 st respondent – Kundapura

Town Municipal Council had filed a suit for recovery of building tax in respect of the ‘B’ schedule properties in a sum of Rs.19,013.73ps on the ground of escape assessment for relevant period 1968-69 to 1978-79.

In the suit, the 1 st defendant – Kundapura Town

Municipal Council had impleaded in all 27 persons as members of joint family. In the suit the defendants 2

10 to 5 had taken a contention that they are not deriving any benefit from the ‘B’ schedule properties and therefore, they are not liable to pay tax. According to them, one Raghurama Shet was the propositus and after his demise, all the defendants constitute undivided joint family.

8. From the material propositions in the pleadings of the parties, it is seen only the petitioners herein are disputing the ‘B’ schedule properties to be joint family properties. They have set up title themselves through one Shankaranarayana Bhat.

Therefore, it is seen at one stage the defendants contend they are the joint family properties, but deny liability to pay tax while the petitioners herein contend that they are joint owners of the properties having succeeded to it from Shankaranarayana Bhat and therefore they are willing to pay the tax.

9. As far as the 1 st respondent - Kundapura

Town Municipal Council is concerned, its interest is

11 fully safeguarded from the submission of the petitioners that they are ready to pay the house tax.

The only ground urged by the petitioners’ counsel against the judgments of the Trial Court and the

Appellate Court is that the Trial Court and the

Appellate Court have held ‘B’ schedule properties to be family properties and that finding will be misused by the other defendants in the suit to claim share in the property. In other words, the apprehension in the mind of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the ‘B’ schedule properties, but respondents 2 to 27 have availed the finding of the Appellate Court and the Trial Court that the properties are joint family properties thereby adversely affect their right.

Though several grounds are urged by the petitioners’ counsel, it admits of no doubt the suit in O.S. NO.

388/89 is for partition and an issue has arisen for consideration raising a question as to ‘B’ schedule properties are the joint family properties of the defendants or whether the petitioners have succeeded

12 to the said properties from Shankarnarayana Bhat. Till the decision is taken in the suit, as of now the properties are shown to be joint family properties. In this view, no fault could be found that the 1 st respondent- Kundapura Town Municipal Council seeking to obtain a decree for recovery of the house tax.

10. I have examined the reasonings assigned by the learned Appellate Judge in R.A. NO. 33/2003. Both the Courts have held ‘B’ schedule properties are the joint family properties and the 1 st respondent –

Kundapura Town Municipal Council is entitled to recover the tax from the Khatedar, who admittedly was Sadashiva Seth. Therefore, it is immaterial as to whether the properties are the joint family properties or individual properties. The decree is only for recovery of the amount in respect of the immovable properties.

13

11. I find no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court.

However, I accept the request of the petitioners’ counsel to record an observation that the decision in

O.S.No.388/1989 dated 1.7.2003 confirmed in R.A.

No.33/2003 shall be confined only to the right of

Kundapur Town Municipal Council to recover tax payable in respect of the ‘B’ schedule properties and the finding of the Trial Court that the said properties are the joint family properties shall not affect the defense of the petitioners who claim to be the legal- heirs of Shankarnarayana Bhat and entitled to share in the properties. Any finding recorded by the Trial

Court and Appellate Court shall be subject to the result of O.S.No.3/1980, which is pending adjudication.

12. In the circumstances, the revision is allowed in part. The right of the Kundapura Town Municipal

Council to recover tax in respect of ‘B’ schedule properties is upheld, but the finding of the Trial Court

14 and the Appellate Court that the ‘B’ schedule properties are the joint family properties is made subject to the result of O.S.No.3/1980 pending adjudication between the parties.

Sd/- JUDGE

Msu