Competent Court Can Only Mutate Legatee's Name In Records Once Will Has Been Proved: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a sibling who is asserting exclusive title based on a Will in his favour cannot get his name mutated in the records based on the Will until it has been substantiated and proved.

A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K V, who had challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and directing Tahsildar to restore the name of the original owner, namely, Kamalamma, mother of the petitioner in the records.

The petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner erred in reversing the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Reliance was placed on Apex court judgment in the case of Suraj Bhan and others vs. Financial Commissioner and others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186 and also judgment rendered by the division bench in W.A.No.4429/2011.

Findings:

The court relied on the full bench judgment in the case of C.N.Nagendra Singh vs. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, reported in ILR 2002 KAR 2750, wherein it was held that revenue courts are prevented from recording the statements of the parties and therefore, 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.

It held “Even if respondent No.5 has filed a suit in partition, that in itself cannot constitute a ground to retain the name of the petitioner on the strength of the will alleged to have been executed by his mother, Kamalamma.”

Further it said, “The petitioner and respondent No.5 (sibling) are tracing inheritance rights through their mother, it becomes more relevant and significant in retaining the mother's name till rights of the parties are fully adjudicated in the pending partition suit.”

Accordingly, the Court observed that “Will either be registered or not registered does not create a right in favour of legatees. The legatee, who claims to be a beneficiary under the will, has to substantiate it and prove it. Unless respondent No.5 is non-suited in a partition suit, the petitioner could not have got his name mutated to the revenue records.”

Thus, it dismissed the petition stating it to be devoid of merits.

Appearance: Advocate Janardhana G for Petitioner.

AGA B.P Radha for Respondents.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 45

Case Title: Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K V AND Government of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order