- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49505 WP No. 6636 of 2017 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, RAJAJINAGAR DIVISION, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE-560010. 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, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49505 WP No. 6636 of 2017 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. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49505 WP No. 6636 of 2017 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49505 WP No. 6636 of 2017 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49505 WP No. 6636 of 2017 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49505 WP No. 6636 of 2017 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49505 WP No. 6636 of 2017 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47