- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6488 WP No. 10855 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10855 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: DR. B. RATHNAKAR RAO, S/O LATE DR.B. NARAYAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT HAREETHAKI HOUSE, SEED FARM ROAD, BELTHANGADY, KASABA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PUTTUR SUB - DIVISION, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 214. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, BELTHANGADY TAULK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6488 WP No. 10855 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER 24.08.2023 PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO.A.DIS.R.R.T.S.R 38/2022.23 REJECTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 136(1) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.03.2019 VIDE NO.RRTCR.63/17-18 ISSUED BY THE R3 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is a class-I heir of Dr. B. Narayan Rao, is aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent No.3-Tahasildar and confirmed by respondent No.2-Assitant Commissioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner is tracing right and title on the basis of the will executed by his father, Dr.B.Narayan Rao, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6488 WP No. 10855 of 2024 which is evidenced at Annexure-C. The petitioner contends that his father has made a testamentary arrangement for his widow and children. In terms of testamentary arrangement, which is by way of a will dated 01.04.1996, the petitioner asserts that the present petition property bearing Sy.No.125/1A was bequeathed in favour of his widow, Smt. Susheela, who is the petitioner's mother, thereby creating a life interest in her favour to be succeeded by the second son, Dr. B.Rathnakar Rao, who is the present petitioner herein. This Court deems it fit to cull out paragraph No.8 of the will, which reads as under: "8. It is my wish and desire that after my death, my immovable properties shall go to my wife and children as detailed here under. a) My dwelling house and compound situated in Eastern portion of S.No. 125/1A of Melthangady village as shown in the map annexed hereto as Annexure I, shall go to my wife Smt. Sushila to be enjoyed by her during her life time only. She will have only life interest over the same and she cannot alienate the same in any manner, without the written consent of my second son, Dr. B. Rathnakar Rao, who shall be entitled to the said property absolutely after the death of my wife. b) Similar life estate over that portion of my cashew farm situated in S.No. 218/1B (1.22 acres) and S.No. 120/1B (3.30 acres) of Bethangady Village, which should vest absolutely on my second son Dr. B. Rathnakar Rao after the death of my wife." - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6488 WP No. 10855 of 2024 4. A review of the records, particularly the mutation bearing MR No.82, confirms that the will has been acted upon, resulting in the change of katha to reflect the legatees’ names, as evidenced in Annexure-E. Specifically, the mutation for property bearing Nos. 125/1A and 125/1A(P) has been independently ordered to reflect the beneficiary under the will. The petitioner’s concern pertains to property No. 125/1A(P), where his mother’s name was recorded for an extent of 68.5 cents jointly along with the petitioner. Paragraph 8 of the will explicitly states that the widow shall have the right to enjoy the property during her lifetime, after which it shall pass to the petitioner. 5. Given these critical facts, the principles set forth by the full bench of this Court in C.N. Nagendra Singh v. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, ILR 2002 KAR 2750, do not squarely apply to the present case. Here, the will has already been implemented, and the legatees’ names are reflected in MR No.82, certified on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6488 WP No. 10855 of 2024 01.04.1996, with the mutation certified on 08.10.2007. The petitioner's name, along with that of his mother, Susheela, has been recorded in the RTC. Since the widow of Dr. B. Narayan Rao is now deceased, the petitioner, as both the son and legatee under the will, is entitled to retain his name in the records while his mother's name should be removed upon acknowledgment of her death certificate and the will dated 01.04.1996. Consequently, the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, as affirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, is unjustified and must be set aside. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. Respondent No.3/Tahasildar shall examine the death certificate of Susheela w/o Dr.B.Narayan Rao and after proper enquiry, shall only proceed to delete the name of Susheela and show - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6488 WP No. 10855 of 2024 exclusively the name of the petitioner in terms of paragraph No.8 of the will; iii. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order copy. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5