- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 23866 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. V.R. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O M. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 351, 5TH CROSS, ATTUR MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 067. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, YELAHANKA, YELAHANKA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 067. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 4. SMT. ARUNA REVINDRA, W/O DR. K. RAVINDRA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1, 7TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. 5. DR. K. RAVINDRA S/O K.S. RANGANATHCHAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1, 7TH CROSS LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027, (REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SMT. ARUNA REVINDRA) 6. SMT. SANDHYA A RAO, W/O A ANANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1, 7TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. (REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SMT. ARUNA REVINDRA) 7. SMT. RAMAMANI R. RAO, W/O LATE RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAJASHRAYA 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. 8. SMT. JYOSNA SRINIVAS, W/O GURUPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER, SMT. SHYAMALA SRINIVAS, W/O LATE SRINIVAS RESIDING AT NO. 9/158 PAVAN PRASAD, 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP FO R1 TO R3; SMT. SUSHEELA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.R. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8; SMT. BRUNDHA G, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN R.P.NO. 176/2022 VIDE ANNX-R DATED 26.02.2024 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 captioned petition filed by the petitioner herein demonstrates blatant misuse of the writ jurisdiction by the petitioner, who has lost his battle in a properly instituted suit bearing O.S.No.787/2005 which is confirmed by this Court in RSA.No.831/2023. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 The subject matter of the petition is agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.39/1, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and Sy.No.39/2, measuring 30 guntas, situated at Atturu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North taluk. The present petitioner is tracing title through his grandfather Muthurayappa. Questioning the alienations in favour of private respondents No.4 to 8, the present petitioner herein, along with his siblings, namely, M.Ramaiah and A.N.Nagarathnamma, filed a comprehensive suit questioning the alienations and accordingly sought a relief of declaration declaring the present petitioner and his siblings as absolute owners in possession of the petition lands and further sought a specific declaration to declare the transaction obtained by the defendants as null and void. The sale deed of 1996 was also challenged in the said suit. 3. The private respondents No.4 to 8, on receipt of summons, invoked the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a)(b) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC and sought - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 rejection of the plaint. The application was strongly resisted by the present petitioner and his siblings. 4. The Trial Court, referring to the pleadings in the plaint in O.S.No.787/2005, dismissed the suit vide order dated 05.09.2022, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.111/2022. 5. The petitioner, along with his siblings, filed a regular second appeal in RSA.No.831/2023. This Court, vide judgment and decree dated 08.12.2023, dismissed the second appeal. 6. It is significant to note that this Court had already decided the regular second appeal on 08.12.2023. However, during the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner, who had previously obtained a probate order from the probate court in 2022, failed to disclose this critical fact before this Court. The probate was granted based on an unregistered will alleged to have been executed by the petitioner’s grandfather, Muthurayappa. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 This deliberate non-disclosure by the petitioner raises serious concerns about the bona fides of his actions. 7. During the pendency of the regular second appeal, the petitioner initiated proceedings in Probate and Succession Case No. 14/2020 before the competent court. In this petition, the petitioner asserted that his grandfather, Muthurayappa, had executed an unregistered will dated 05.01.1992, through which he purportedly bequeathed the disputed properties to the petitioner. Strikingly, the petitioner chose to implead only his siblings as respondents in the probate proceedings, thereby excluding other interested parties who could have contested the matter. Acting on the petition filed under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, the probate court granted the petitioner a probate certificate through its order dated 30.08.2021. 8. Armed with the probate certificate obtained from the probate court, the petitioner sought to leverage the order despite this Court having already rendered a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 judgment in the regular second appeal, which upheld the alienations made by the petitioner's grandfather in favor of private respondents Nos. 4 to 8. Subsequently, the petitioner approached respondent No. 3, the Tahsildar, by filing an application alleging inaction in giving effect to the probate order. When there was no response, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 11921/2019, suppressing the earlier judgments delivered by the civil courts concerning the validity of the alienations. 9. This Court, in W.P. No. 11921/2019, took cognizance of the probate order and directed respondent No. 3, the Tahsildar, to consider the petitioner’s representation within six months. This direction is evidenced by Annexure-R30 in the statement of objections. Alleging non-implementation of the Court’s order, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings in CCC No. 439/2020. During the pendency of these contempt proceedings, respondent No. 3, the Tahsildar, complied - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 with the directions issued by the coordinate bench by taking appropriate action and submitting a compliance affidavit before the Court. Consequently, the contempt proceedings were closed through an order dated 17.02.2021. 10. This Court deems it fit to cull out paragraph No.2 of the contempt proceedings, which reads as under: "The order of which breach is alleged was required to be complied with by the second accused within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. From the correspondence made by the second accused (Annexure-D), it is apparent that the said accused was aware of the order at least in December 2019, if not earlier. In fact, in the affidavit filed by the second accused, he has accepted that the complainant had approached his office on 29th November 2019. However, an endorsement in terms of the order of which breach is alleged was issued on 1st February 2021. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay of more than one year.' 11. The present case marks the second round of litigation concerning the mutation proceedings. Notably, the private respondents No. 4 to 8 were neither notified - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 nor afforded an opportunity to be heard before the changes were made to the record of rights (RTC) based on the probate order, under the provisions of Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). This omission of due process has led to the private respondents feeling aggrieved by the deletion of their names from the RTC and, as a result, they chose to challenge the mutation order. They filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No. 2, and in the course of the appeal, they placed on record the decree passed in O.S. No. 787/2005, which had already been confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A. No. 111/2022, and the judgment rendered by this Court in RSA No. 831/2023. These documents were vital in demonstrating that the mutation based on the probate order was legally untenable. 12. Upon reviewing these documents, respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, rightly observed that - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 the mutation, which was carried out based on the probate decree, was legally flawed. Consequently, respondent No. 2 allowed the appeal and directed the Tahsildar to restore the names of the private respondents (Nos. 4 to 8) to the RTC, effectively undoing the changes made earlier under the probate order. This decision of the Assistant Commissioner was further affirmed by respondent No. 1, the Deputy Commissioner, thereby upholding the restoration of the private respondents' names in the RTC. 13. The matter was then brought before this Court, where the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned senior counsel representing respondents No. 5 to 8, and the learned HCGP for respondents No. 1 to 3, were heard. After perusing the records, it became evident that the case presented a deeply concerning situation. 14. The entire set of proceedings highlights a troubling pattern of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts by the petitioner. The probate court's order, granting probate based on the will alleged to have been - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 executed by the petitioner's grandfather, Muthurayappa, is a clear example of this. At the time when the petitioner approached the probate court, he had already suffered an adverse judgment and decree in O.S. No. 787/2005, which was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A. No. 111/2022. In that case, the courts had concluded that the petitioner's grandfather, Muthurayappa, had lawfully conveyed the property through a General Power of Attorney (GPA), and therefore, the petitioner had no locus to challenge the alienation of the property. Despite the pendency of the second appeal in RSA No. 831/2023, the petitioner, by engaging in fraudulent conduct, presented a fabricated will to the probate court and secured a probate order. Shockingly, this will had never been brought up in the earlier O.S. No. 787/2005 proceedings, indicating that it was manufactured for the purpose of leveraging the probate order contingent on the outcome of the second appeal. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 15. Furthermore, after suffering the judgment in the second appeal, the petitioner opted to file a representation and later a writ petition in W.P. No. 11921/2019, as evidenced in Annexure-R30. This petition was filed without any disclosure of the adverse court orders and led to the petitioner securing a mandamus from this Court, all while keeping the private respondents completely in the dark. To further press his case, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings, compelling the Tahsildar to comply with the directions issued by the writ court. This case represents a textbook example of suppression of judicial proceedings that had attained finality, thereby amounting to an abuse of the judicial process and a fraud on both the probate court and the writ court. 16. What is even more egregious is the fact that the petitioner, having been defeated in the second appeal, chose not to pursue a remedy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to challenge the judgment in RSA No. 831/2023. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 Instead, he chose to file multiple writ petitions, as evidenced by the 17 writ petitions detailed in Annexure- R29 of the statement of objections. The Court, in its earlier order dated 24.01.2024, had explicitly relegated the petitioner to challenge the judgment rendered in RSA No. 831/2023 before the Supreme Court, should he wish to do so. Despite this, the petitioner continued his frivolous litigation, which has only served to further burden the judicial system. The conduct displayed by the petitioner reflects a deliberate and calculated attempt to circumvent the judicial processes that had conclusively settled the dispute, and it highlights his abuse of the legal system. Therefore, it is evident that this is a fit case for imposing exemplary costs on the petitioner for initiating these baseless litigations, which only serve to prolong and complicate a matter that had already been conclusively decided by this Court in RSA No. 831/2023. Had the petitioner accepted the judgment of this Court, he would not have resorted to securing a probate order through misrepresentation and suppression of key facts. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 17. The petitioner’s conduct in this case exemplifies a staggering level of audacity and flagrant abuse of judicial forums, which warrants the imposition of an exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000. By fraudulently obtaining the probate, the petitioner has not only misused the probate court as a tool to circumvent final and binding judgments rendered by the civil courts, but has also shown a complete disregard for the integrity of the legal process. The petitioner deliberately suppressed crucial facts, including the existence of adverse decrees in O.S. No. 787/2005 and the confirmation of those decrees in R.A. No. 111/2022, and resorted to manufacturing a will for the sole purpose of securing a favorable probate order. This calculated fraud on the probate court undermines the very foundation of trust in judicial decisions. Moreover, the petitioner, after having been thoroughly defeated in the second appeal and with the issue conclusively decided by this Court in RSA No. 831/2023, sought to bypass the judicial system by filing a writ petition under false pretenses and suppressing relevant orders. The audacity - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 of initiating contempt proceedings to compel the Tahsildar to comply with directions, while simultaneously hiding the truth from this Court, is a direct assault on the sanctity of the contempt and writ courts. Such flagrant abuse of process not only wastes judicial time but also undermines the legitimacy of court orders, and thus, an exemplary cost must be imposed to deter such unscrupulous behavior and to send a strong message that the legal system will not tolerate such deliberate misuse of judicial forums.This is a fit case impose cost of 50000. 18. Furthermore, it is deeply unfortunate that the Tahsildar, respondent No. 3, was coerced into depositing a cost of Rs. 15,000/- in the contempt proceedings while reporting compliance with the Court’s directions. This cost, which was borne due to the petitioner’s fraudulent actions, should rightfully be recovered from the petitioner, as it was his fraudulent conduct that led to the unnecessary initiation of contempt proceedings and the consequent costs being imposed on the Tahsildar. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:2154 WP No. 23866 of 2024 19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed; ii. The petitioner is hereby directed to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the 'Advocate Clerks Benevolent Fund'. iii. The petitioner shall also deposit an additional sum Rs.15,000/- which was deposited by the Tahsildar in contempt proceedings at the instance of the petitioner herein to the 'Advocate Clerks Benevolent Fund'. iv. This compliance shall be reported by the petitioner within a period of four weeks, failing which appropriate proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner to recover the cost. v. It is needless to mention that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is hereby affirmed. HDK, CT: BHK SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE