Safiya Malik

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, which reversed a mutation entry in the revenue records in favor of the petitioner. The dispute pertains to agricultural land where the petitioner sought mutation based on a will executed by his late mother. The Deputy Commissioner’s decision restored the name of the deceased original owner pending the outcome of a partition suit filed by the petitioner's sibling. The court upheld this decision, affirming that the revenue authorities could not determine the genuineness of a will in mutation proceedings.

The dispute concerns agricultural land measuring 1 acre 85 guntas in Survey No. 27/RS/5 and 0.5 acres in Survey No. 27/RS/3, both situated in Kodimbady village. The properties were initially owned by Kamalamma, the petitioner’s mother, who acquired them under the Akrama-Sakrama scheme on April 21, 1999.

Following Kamalamma’s demise, the petitioner sought mutation of the land in his name based on a will dated November 5, 2019. However, the petitioner's sibling, respondent No.5, challenged the mutation before the Assistant Commissioner, arguing that the validity of the will had to be determined through a civil suit. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the grounds that respondent No.5 had already initiated a partition suit before a civil court.

Aggrieved by this decision, respondent No.5 approached the Deputy Commissioner, who reversed the Assistant Commissioner’s order. The Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to restore the name of Kamalamma as the landowner in the revenue records, pending the outcome of the partition suit. The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition challenging this order.

The High Court examined whether the revenue authorities had the jurisdiction to determine the validity of the will relied upon by the petitioner for mutation purposes. The court referred to the Full Bench decision in C.N. Nagendra Singh v. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, ILR 2002 KAR 2750, which established that revenue authorities cannot assess the genuineness of a will in mutation proceedings.

The court stated: "The question of establishing the genuineness of the will cannot be ventured into in a mutation proceeding and has to be left to the discretion of the competent civil court."

Further, the court noted that merely because respondent No.5 had filed a partition suit did not automatically justify the petitioner’s retention of the mutation entry in his favor. The petitioner had to prove the authenticity of the will as per the requirements of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court observed:
"The petitioner is asserting exclusive title based on a will and has to prove the will in the manner known to law. Unless the petitioner is able to prove the genuineness of the will, adhering to strict compliance under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the petitioner does not acquire right as contemplated under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, to get his name mutated based on a will."

The High Court also stated that whether the will was registered or not had no bearing on the legal rights of the parties until its validity was judicially determined. It noted: "Will either be registered or not registered does not create a right in favor of legatees. The legatee, who claims to be a beneficiary under the will, has to substantiate it and prove it."

Upholding the Deputy Commissioner’s order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It ruled that: "The order passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, is in accordance with law. Therefore, writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed."

However, the court noted that the petitioner was not precluded from proving the will's authenticity in the pending civil suit. It stated: "This order will not be an impediment for the petitioner herein to lead cogent evidence and substantiate the genuineness of the will in the pending suit."

Case Title: Sri Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K.V. v. Government of Karnataka & Others
Case Number: WP No. 241 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum

[Read/Download order]