- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51437 WP No. 32821 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 32821 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: MR R C GAUTHAM SON OF MR. CHANDRASHEKARAN G.R. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.72, ANNASANDRA PALYA EXTENSION, 3RD CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR HAL POST, BANGALORE-560017. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560002. 2. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560002. 3. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER WARD NO.111, SHANTHI NAGARA SUB DIVISION, 12TH FLOOR PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING MG ROAD, BANGALORE- 560001. 4. SHARMILA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS W/O LATE VIJAYAKRISHNAN Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51437 WP No. 32821 of 2025 RESIDING AT NO. 31 A AND B, AUSTIN TOWN BENGALURU-560 017 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 05.12.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED: 25.04.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE (ANNEXURE-A) AND DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE KHATA TRANSFER APPLICATION DATED: 05.03.2025 (ANNEXURE-F) AND ISSUE KHATA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RELATION TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for quashing the endorsement bearing No.¸À.PÀA.C.(±Á.£À)¦.Dgï/ /2025-26 dated 25.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 by which his application was rejected. 2. The petitioner contends that the property bearing No.31, A and B Block, Austin Town, Bengaluru-560047, measuring East to West 22.3 feet and North to South 41.6 feet (henceforth referred to as 'the subject property') belonged to his maternal uncle, named Mr. S. Vijay Krishnan. Mr. S. Vijay - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51437 WP No. 32821 of 2025 Krishnan executed a Will dated 28.03.2015 bequeathing the subject property to the petitioner. After the death of Mr. Vijay Krishnan on 05.02.2025, the petitioner submitted an application for transfer of the khata of the subject property to his name. In the meanwhile, the wife of Mr. S. Vijay Krishnan (respondent No.4 herein) upon coming to know of the application filed by the petitioner, filed O.S. No.25432/2025 before the LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, against the petitioner concerning the subject property. The said suit was filed for perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioner herein, his relatives, henchmen, from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property / subject property. The petitioner contends that no ex parte injunction was granted in the said suit. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 thereafter issued an endorsement dated 25.04.2025 rejecting the request of the petitioner for transfer of his name in the property register in respect of the subject property. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the said endorsement. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51437 WP No. 32821 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Will executed by Sri S. Vijay Krishnan in favour of the petitioner is duly registered and the same is within the knowledge of the respondent No.4. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.4 cannot oppose the name of the petitioner being entered in the property register. He contends that the respondent No.3 must have taken into account the Will executed in favour of the petitioner and must have directed entry of the name of the petitioner in the property register of the subject property. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, however, submits that the respondent No.4 is the natural legal heir of the deceased Sri S. Vijay Krishnan. The question whether such a Will was executed or not, cannot be adjudicated upon by the respondent No.3 and that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to go before the Civil Court and obtain a declaration or a probate in accordance with law. He, therefore, contended that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.3 is proper and justified and does not call for interference. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51437 WP No. 32821 of 2025 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, the respondent No.3 cannot sit in judgment over the question whether late Sri S. Vijay Krishnan had validly executed the Will or not. He also cannot go into the question whether the petitioner could claim any legitimate title or interest in the property based on the Will. Therefore, the respondent No.3 was justified in not entertaining the request of the petitioner to enter his name in the property register in respect of the subject property. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in C.N. Nagendra Singh v. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and Others [ILR 2002 Kar 2750], where in similar circumstances, a Full Bench of this Court held that revenue officer has no jurisdiction to enquire into and decide the dispute regarding the genuineness of a Will even for the limited purpose of making an entry in the mutation register as it falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51437 WP No. 32821 of 2025 with the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.3. 7. Hence, the petition is dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for declaration of his title based on the Will dated 28.03.2015 or obtain a probate in accordance with law and thereafter, approach the respondent No.3, who shall then take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 is permitted to file memo of appearance within 10 days from today. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19