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
NC: 2024:KHC:30056
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
NC: 2024:KHC:30056
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
ILR 2002 KAR 2750
NC: 2024:KHC:30056
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
