Karnataka High Court
Mr. Jai Kumar. R vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48259
WP No. 13354 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 13354 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. JAI KUMAR. R
S/O MR RANGANATH.C,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
2. MRS.GAYATHRI .C
W/O MR.JAI KUMAR R,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO 27,
II CROSS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560010
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SUMA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
Location:
HIGH REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
COURT OF M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560002.
3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST),
WEST REGION, BBMP,
SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48259
WP No. 13354 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER,
(MAHALAKSHMIPURAM ) SUB DIVISION,
BBMP OFFICE COMPLEX,
12TH MAIN ROAD, 11TH CROSS ROAD,
II FLOOR, NAGAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560086.
5. MR.DHANANJAYA PUTHRAN BENGERE
S/O LATE SHIVANANDA BANGERA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NO 785, 10TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560079.
6 MR.PARUSHURAM RAO,
S/O LATE CHANDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
7 MRS.SAVITHA RAO PRAVEEN
D/O MR.PARUSHURAM RAO
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.785, 10TH A MAIN,
3RD STAGE, IV BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 079.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.BOPANNA.B. ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI.P.CHINANAND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4;
SRI.HAREESH BHANDARY.T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5;
VIDE ORDER DATED 25.01.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.6
AND 7 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED
14.6.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 ASST. REVENUE
OFFICER, BBMP, BANGALORE, VIDE REF.NO.DA/WA-
74/KTR/12/2023-24, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS
CONCERNED PETITIONERS AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48259
WP No. 13354 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice bearing No.rJ/ªÁ- 74/PÉ.n.Dgï/12/2023-24 (henceforth referred to as 'impugned notice') dated 14.06.2023 issued by the respondent No.4 in so far as it relates to the petitioners. They also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.07/2018- 19 dated 17.08.2022 (henceforth referred to as 'impugned order') passed by the respondent No.3.
2. (i) The petitioners contend that they had jointly purchased a property bearing No.785, BBMP PID No.16-1-785, situated at Basaveshwara Nagara, Bengaluru from Sri.Sandeep S. Hegde, in terms of a sale deed dated 06.03.2023. Based upon the said transaction, the name of the petitioners was entered in the property register extract maintained by the respondent No.4.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:48259 WP No. 13354 of 2023 HC-KAR
(ii) The petitioners contend that their predecessor Sri.Sandeep S. Hegde had purchased the aforesaid property from Smt.Savitha Rao Praveen in terms of a sale deed dated 05.01.2018 and that the Khatha of the property stood in her name. They also contend that the said Smt.Savitha Rao Praveen owned the aforesaid property in terms of a release deed dated 24.08.2016 executed by her father Sri.Parashuram Rao.
(iii) When things stood thus, the respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 14.06.2023 to transfer the khatha of the property in question to the name of the respondent No.5 pursuant to an order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the respondent No.3. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the aforesaid notices as well as the order passed by the respondent No.3.
3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the property in question was owned and possessed by Sri.Parashuram Rao, who executed a release deed dated 24.08.2016 in favour of Smt.Savitha Rao Praveen and that she sold the property to Sri.Sandeep S. Hegde on -5- NC: 2025:KHC:48259 WP No. 13354 of 2023 HC-KAR 05.01.2018 and later the petitioners purchased it from said Sri.Sandeep S. Hegde. He contends that the Khatha of the property in question was earlier transferred to the name of Smt.Savitha Rao Praveen and thereafter to the name of Sri.Sandeep S. Hegde and then to the name of the petitioners.
(ii) He contends that the respondent No.5, without arraying either the petitioners or their predecessors in title, initiated a proceeding before the respondent No.2 claiming title to the aforesaid property based on a Will purportedly executed by Smt.Rohini Bengera w/o Sri.Parashuram Rao. He contends that the respondent No.2 could not have entertained the dispute raised by the respondent No.5 based on the Will executed by Smt.Rohini Bengera and that the respondent No.5 ought to have approached the Civil Court for a declaration about the legitimacy of the Will executed by Smt.Rohini Bengera. At any rate, he contends that the respondent No.3 is not authorized in law to give a declaration about the valid execution of the Will by Smt.Rohini Bengera in favour of the respondent No.5.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:48259 WP No. 13354 of 2023 HC-KAR
4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.5, who has filed a statement of objections inter alia contending that the property in question was earlier owned and possessed by Sri.Parashuram Rao, who executed a gift deed in the favour of his wife Smt.Rohini Bengera on 02.02.2002. It is contended that Smt.Rohini Bengera had executed a Will bequeathing the aforesaid property in favour of the respondent No.5 on 17.06.2011 and the said Will was duly registered. It also claimed that the respondent No.3 after considering all the contentions, was of the opinion that the respondent No.5 had inherited the property based on the Will dated 17.06.2011 and therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 and the consequent notice issued by the respondent No.4 is just and proper.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
6. The property in question belonged to Sri.Parashuram Rao, who executed a gift deed dated 02.02.2002 in favour of his wife Smt.Rohini Bengera. The said -7- NC: 2025:KHC:48259 WP No. 13354 of 2023 HC-KAR Smt.Rohini Bengera pre-deceased her husband on 16.06.2016. Ordinarily if Smt.Rohini Bengera died intestate, then the property would have been inherited by her husband Sri.Parashuram Rao. It appears that the said Sri.Parashuram Rao had executed a release deed releasing his interest in the aforesaid property in favour of Smt.Savitha Rao Praveen and that the said Smt.Savitha Rao Praveen had sold the property to Sri.Sandeep S. Hegde and that the said Sri.Sandeep S Hegde, who thereafter sold it to the petitioners. If Smt.Rohini Bengera had executed a Will in favour of respondent No.5, the respondent No.2 ought to have impleaded either the petitioners or their predecessors in title in proceedings under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1976'). However, the respondent No.2 entertained the review petition under Section 114A of the Act, 1976 and held that the respondent No.5 had inherited the aforesaid property in terms of the Will of Smt.Rohini Bengera. Since, the impugned order is passed by respondent No.3 behind the back of the petitioners, the same is not binding on the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:48259 WP No. 13354 of 2023 HC-KAR
7. Be that as it may, in the face of the contention of the petitioners that Smt.Rohini Bengera did not execute a Will in favour of the respondent No.5, no purpose would be served in restoring the proceedings before respondent No.3 for adjudication. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in C.N.Nagendra Singh vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and Others [ILR 2002 KAR 2750], where it was held as follows:
"9. Considering Rule 43, when a person claims title to a property under a Will for the purpose of getting a mutation entry in the revenue records before any such entry is made the Revenue Court should prima facie be satisfied that the said document is genuine and valid even in the absence of any dispute as the said Will comes in the way of natural succession. By virtue of Section 128 when the owner of the land dies, the title to the said property passes on to the legal heir by succession or survivorship or inheritance and the property vests with such a legal heir without there being any document and purely based on the relationship of the deceased with the legal heir. A Will can come into operation only after the death of the executant. If a Will is set up to deprive, a legal heir who had acquired title to the property either by succession, survivorship or inheritance, the person claiming under the Will has to show better title. If the Will -9- NC: 2025:KHC:48259 WP No. 13354 of 2023 HC-KAR is disputed strict proof of Will as required under Sections 63 and 64 of the Succession Act is to be provided. When the Revenue Court is prevented from recording the statements of the parties and the depositions, the question of establishing the genuineness of the Will for any purpose whatsoever before the Revenue Court in an enquiry would not arise. Under these circumstances, the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to go into the genuineness or validity of the Will or to the question of title in respect of the land in dispute. The decision of the Revenue Court has to be necessarily based on the undisputed facts. The Revenue Court cannot go into the disputed questions of relationship, status of the parties' title to the property or genuineness or otherwise of a document or challenge to the documents on the ground of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or mistake. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of Rule 43 in the case of a Will."
8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 as well as the impugned notice issued by respondent No.4 warrants interference.
9. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48259 WP No. 13354 of 2023 HC-KAR ii. The impugned notice issued by respondent No.4 and the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 are set aside. The proceedings before the respondent No.3 initiated by the respondent No.5 is quashed.
iii. The respondent No.5 is at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law to establish the Will purportedly executed by Smt.Rohini Bengera in his favour. If the respondent No.5 establishes the above, then the respondent No.4 may take appropriate steps to register in the name of the respondent No.5 in the property register in respect of the aforesaid property.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47