Karnataka High Court
WP/37340/2015 of SRI. K. JAYARAMAIAH Vs THE SECRETARY on 22 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010062082015 NC: 2026:KHC:52012 WP No. 37340 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 37340 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K. JAYARAMAIAH S/O LATE M.C.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 37340 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. K. JAYARAMAIAH
S/O LATE M.C. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O KRISHNAGIRI NILAYA,
CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGR, MANDYA-571401.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE SECRETARY
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-1.
2.
THE TAHASILDAR
TALUK EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571436.
3.
K. MUDDALINGAIAH
S/O LATE M.C. KRISHNAPPA
AGED 67 YEARS
R/O KRISHNAGIRI NIALYA,
CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR
MANDYA -571436.
4.
K.NAGAARAJU
S/O LATE M.C. KRISHNAPPA
Verified
HC-KAR
AGED 57 YEARS
PDO THAGGAAHLLY GRAM PANCHAYTH
THAGGAHALLY, MANDYA TALUK-571 436.
5.
K. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O LATE M.C. KRISHNAPPA
AGED 53 YEARS
R/O MARGOWDANAHLLY VILLAGE,
KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571436.
6.
PURUSHOTTAMMA
S/O LATE M.C. KRISHNAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS
R/O POLICE QUARTERS, A BLCOK,
HOUSE NO.1 ,MANDYA -571436.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. M.G. RAVISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4, R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ANNEXURE-J DATED 30.10.2013 PASSED BY THE R-2 i.e TAHASILDAR, MANDYA TQ, MANDYA IN C.Mis.NO.125/2010-11.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by respondent No.2 – Tahasildar, vide Annexure-J, whereby the petitioner has been relegated to work out his remedies before the competent Civil Court.
Verified
HC-KAR
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on being specifically queried as to the maintainability of the present petition and as to why the petitioner should not be relegated to avail his remedies before the competent Civil Court, fairly submits that the petitioner had earlier instituted a suit for partition before the competent Civil Court. The said suit came to be dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed by this Court in second appeal, principally on the ground that the petitioner had failed to include all the ancestral properties in the suit.
3. In the light of the aforesaid submission, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute sought to be agitated by the petitioner, notwithstanding the order passed by respondent No.2 – Tahasildar, is essentially civil in nature. The petitioner, having already approached the Civil Court and having been granted liberty to work out his
Verified
HC-KAR
remedies in accordance with law, cannot seek adjudication of the disputed questions of title and partition in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If, as noticed by this Court while disposing of the second appeal, the earlier suit was defective for non-inclusion of all the ancestral properties, it is open for the petitioner to institute a comprehensive suit for partition and seek appropriate relief in respect of all the properties in accordance with law. Consequently, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. Respondent No.2 – Tahasildar was justified in relegating the petitioner to avail his remedy before the competent Civil Court, particularly when the dispute is predominantly civil in nature.
4. Insofar as the petitioner’s grievance that, pursuant to the remand order passed by this Court, he has deposited the requisite expenses and that the amount allegedly due to him has not been paid, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the said grievance and seek appropriate
Verified
HC-KAR
relief in the comprehensive suit, if instituted, in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of.
All contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the competent Civil Court, in accordance with law.
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
Verified