Karnataka High Court
Sri C B Prasanna vs The Deputy Commissioner on 30 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30056
WP No. 9060 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 9060 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C.B. PRASANNA
S/O LATE SRI. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHIKKAKUNDA VILLAGE
KODLIPET HOBLI, SOMAVARPETE TALUK
COORG DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AMBARISHA .N, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.S. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADAKERI-571 201.
Digitally signed
by ALBHAGYA
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Location: HIGH KODAGU DISTRICT
COURT OF
MADIKERI-571 201.
KARNATAKA
3. THE THAHASILDAR
SOMAVARPET TALUK
SOMAVARPET
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
4. SRI. C.R.DHARSHAN
S/O SRI. C.B. RAJU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHIKKAKUNDA VILLAGE
KODLIPET HOBLI
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30056
WP No. 9060 of 2018
SOMAVARPETE TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 241.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH .A.S, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE
R-1 IN REV. APPEAL NO. 9/2017-18 DATED 13.11.2017 VIDE
ANEX-P.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner asserting title based on a Will is questioning the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by respondent No.1 in Rev.Appeal.No.09/2017-19 as per Annexure-P.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and the learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Perused the records.
3. Petitioner is asserting title based on a disputed Will dated 7.10.1985. The subject-matter of the petition is the property measuring 2 cents situated at Chikkakunda -3- NC: 2024:KHC:30056 WP No. 9060 of 2018 Village, Kodlipet Hobli, Somavarpete Taluk. The petitioner contends that this property was jointly purchased by his father and one Smt. Deviramma through a registered sale deed. Petitioner contends that the said Deviramma conveyed one cent to the present petitioner under registered sale deed. Petitioner having purchased one cent from Deviramma is asserting that his father has bequeathed one cent in his favour and therefore is asserting title to the entire property.
4. Respondent No.4 objected the mutation proceedings. Respondent No.3 without entertaining the petitioner's claim ordered to enter the name of respondent No.4 as the legal heir. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner taking cognizance of the Will has allowed the appeal and directed the Tahsildar to mutate petitioner's name based on the Will. The Deputy Commissioner however, has reversed the same vide -4- NC: 2024:KHC:30056 WP No. 9060 of 2018 impugned order which is under challenge on the ground that petitioner is not entitled to get his name mutated based on the Will.
5. The law relating to right of a legatee in a mutation proceedings is no more res integra. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of C.N. Nagendra Singh .vs. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and others 1 has held that revenue Court has no jurisdiction to go into the details in respect of the immovable property which exclusively vests in the civil Court. Considering Rule 43 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, the Full Bench held that revenue Court cannot effect mutation entries based on the Will when it is seriously disputed by other legal heirs. When a Will is disputed, the revenue Court cannot go into the disputed questions of relationship, status of the parties and the title to the property and genuineness or otherwise of the Will. Respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner has rightly set-aside the order passed by respondent No.2/Assistant 1 ILR 2002 KAR 2750 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:30056 WP No. 9060 of 2018 Commissioner. The order passed by respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner clearly adheres to the law laid down by this Court in catena of judgments. The petitioner has to substantiate and prove the genuineness of the Will by approaching the competent civil Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petition needs to be relegated to substantiate and prove the Will in the manner known to law.
6. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. Hence, reserving liberty to approach the competent civil Court, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32