Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shashikanth vs The Commissioner on 27 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49505
WP No. 6636 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 6636 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHASHIKANTH
SON OF LATE JYOTHOJI RAO PAWAR,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.740, 1ST FLOOR,
12TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUJAYEENDRA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
CSE INDUSTRIAL TOWN,
Digitally
signed by RAJAJINAGAR DIVISION,
SUMA BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
Location: BANGALORE-560010.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. SRI. VINOD KUMAR
SON OF SRI. PARASMAL GANNA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.134/3,
47TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 010.
4. SMT. PUSHPA BAI
WIFE OF LATE PARASMAL GANNA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49505
WP No. 6636 of 2017
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT NO.134/3,
47TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 010.
5. VIJAY
S/O SRI. SHASHIKANTH PAWAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.740,
12TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE -560010.
AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.07.2014
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BATHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND
2;
SRI. SRIHARI N.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF ACCEPTANCE OF MUTATION AND ISSUANCE
OF KATHA CERTIFICATE DATED 03.09.2016 BEARING
REF.NO.BMP/REV/2016-17/KC/1077432, ISSUED IN THE NAME OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND KATHA
CERTIFICATE DATED 03.09.2016 BEARING NO.BMP/REV/2016-
17/KC/1077428, ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS
PER ANNEXURE-K.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the acceptance of mutation and registration
of khata in the names of respondent Nos.3 and 4.
NC: 2025:KHC:49505
HC-KAR
2. (i) Briefly stated, the facts of the case as pleaded
in the writ petition are that one Mr. V. Jyothoji Rao Pawar was
the owner of the property bearing No.740, 12th Main, 3rd Block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010, which comprised of ground
and first floor. He had executed a Will dated 06.03.1997 and
bequeathed the aforesaid property to his four sons and two
daughters. He died on 03.07.2004. The daughter-in-law and
granddaughters of said Mr. V. Jyothoji Rao Pawar filed
O.S.No.2846/2003 before the I Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-2) for partition and
separate possession of their share in the aforesaid property.
The said suit was decreed in part and it was declared that the
daughter-in-law and granddaughters of Mr. V. Jyothoji Rao
Pawar were together entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property.
The petitioner herein was one of the defendants in the said suit.
Following the said decree, FDP No.64/2015 was filed.
(ii) It is claimed that khata of the property stood in the
name of Mr. V. Jyothoji Rao Pawar. It is claimed that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 accepted the Will dated 06.03.1997
executed by Mr. V. Jyothoji Rao Pawar in favour of his four sons
NC: 2025:KHC:49505
HC-KAR
and two daughters and effected khata in the name of the
beneficiaries.
(iii) Later, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2846/2003 executed
a sale deed dated 31.10.2014 in favour of respondent No.3.
Similarly, son, granddaughter and grandson of Mr. V. Jyothoji
Rao Pawar executed a sale deed dated 12.11.2009 in favour of
respondent No.4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 based on the
sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 registered the
name of the respondent No.3 and 4 in the property register.
(iv) Being aggrieved by the khata made out in the name
of respondent Nos.3 and 4, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
when O.S.No.2846/2003 was decreed, the petitioner and other
children of Mr. V. Jyothoji Rao Pawar were entitled to an
undivided share. He contends that none of the defendants in
the suit had propounded the Will dated 06.03.1997 and the
validity of the Will was not tested. He therefore, contends that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not have acted upon the Will
dated 06.03.1997 purportedly executed by Mr. V. Jyothoji Rao
Pawar. He also contends that the Will was not placed before the
NC: 2025:KHC:49505
HC-KAR
Trial Court in O.S.No.2846/2003 and therefore, the Will is
suspicious and cannot be given effect to. He further contends
that since the proceedings are now pending consideration in
FDP No.64/2015, entries in the property register have to be
restored back to the name of Mr. V. Jyothoji Rao Pawar and it
should be subject to the outcome of proceedings in Final
Decree Proceedings.
4. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 though served with the
notice of this petition, have not appeared.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 also claimed
that khata could not have been effected in the name of
beneficiaries under the Will.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the
respondent No.5.
7. In support of the contention of the petitioner that
suit in O.S.No.2846/2003 was decreed, a certified copy of the
decree is enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure - C. The
petitioner has also claimed that FDP No.64/2015 is filed to
NC: 2025:KHC:49505
HC-KAR
enforce the decree and the same is pending consideration. As
rightly contended by the petitioner, no one had propounded the
Will dated 06.03.1997 in O.S.No.2846/2003 and the legitimacy
of the Will was not tested. However, the respondent Nos.1 and
2 have acted on the Will purportedly executed by Mr. V.
Jyothoji Rao Pawar on 06.03.1997 and have effected khata in
the name of the beneficiaries under the Will. The petitioner has
claimed that the testament dated 06.03.1997 is suspicious and
could not be given effect to. In similar circumstances, a Full
Bench of this Court in C.N. Nagendra Singh vs. The Special
Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and others
[ILR 2002 KAR 2750], had held that revenue authorities
cannot sit in judgment over the lawful execution of Will and
revenue entries cannot be brought based on the will as it is not
a transfer inter vivos. In that view of the matter, khata made
out in the name of the beneficiaries based on the Will dated
06.03.1997 do not stand to reason. Consequently, khata made
out in the name of respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be
continued.
8. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is
allowed. The khatas made out in the name of respondent
NC: 2025:KHC:49505
HC-KAR
Nos.3 and 4 are quashed. The name of Mr. V. Jyothoji Rao
Pawar shall be restored in the property register maintained by
respondent No.2 in respect of the property bearing No.740, 12th
Main, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010. It is
needless to mention that if the final decree proceedings are
concluded and if the portions that were sold in favour of
respondent Nos.3 and 4 are allotted to their respective
vendors, then efforts should be taken to enter the name of
respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the property register.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
