Writ Petition No. 18630 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 18630 OF 2021 (LB-RES) …PETITIONER BETWEEN: MURALIDHARA .S AGED 53 YEARS S/O LATE R.SRIRANGABHATTACHARYA R/AT VIJAYAPURA TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGLAURU-562 110. (BY SRI. G.B. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIGNESHWARA .U, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TOWN MUNICIPALITY VIJAYAPURA DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. REP BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER. 2. SMT. VIJAYANTHIMALA W/O LATE KESHAVABHATTACHARYA AGED 60 YEARS 3. V.K.LAKSHMI W/O VASUDEVA AGED 40 YEARS R2 AND R3 ARE R/AT NEAR SOWMYA KESHAVA SWAMY TEMPLE Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR KOTE BEEDI, VIJAYAPURA TOWN 6TH WARD, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGLAURU-562 110. 4. JALAJA W/O MADHUSUDHAN BHAT AGED 35 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMI VENKATARAMANA SWAMY TEMPLE, MUDDENAPALYA MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 023. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. VEENA KUMARI .M, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.05.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE R1 MUNICIPALITY VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND DECLARE THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND DIRECT THE R1 MUNICIPALITY TO CARRY OUT THE KHATA IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 JOINTLY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 12.05.2020 issued by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-H. Consequently, directions are sought at the hands of this Court against the respondent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR No.1 to effect change of katha in respect of schedule land in favour of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 jointly. 2. The present case is a classic illustration of how the genuine and well-intentioned efforts of a testator to ensure an amicable distribution of his estate among his two sons has unfortunately culminated in prolonged and acrimonious litigation within the family. Despite the parties having approached the competent probate Court and having arrived at a compromise, which was duly recorded by way of a decree, the underlying disputes and misunderstandings concerning the property have persisted unabated. The continued wrangling over the property, even in the face of a compromise decree, highlights the deep-seated discord between the parties. Aggrieved by the subsequent endorsement issued by the authority, the parties have now approached this Court seeking redressal. It is pertinent to note that the action taken by respondent No.1, instead of resolving or clarifying the matter in line - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR with the clear testamentary intent as reflected in the schedule annexed to the Will and the compromise decree, has only served to deepen the conflict. This has further obfuscated the intent of the testator and complicated what was intended to be a settled arrangement between the family members. 3. This Court under writ jurisdiction has to only look into the testamentary arrangement made by the testator followed by a compromise recorded by both the parties before a probate court in P&SC No.15004/2015. Therefore, except reading the contents of the Will, this Court is not inclined to entertain any interpretations at the hands of the respective parties. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to first take cognizance of the recitals in the Will. For easy reference, the true copy of the Will is furnished by the respondents along with statement of objections. The relevant portion needs to be culled out and the same is extracted as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR "……… ಈ (cid:2)ೕಲ(cid:5)ಂಡ ಎ(cid:9)ಾ(cid:11) ಅಂಶಗಳ(cid:16) ನನ(cid:18) ಮರ(cid:21)ಾನಂತರ (cid:23)ಾ(cid:24)(cid:25)ೆ ಬರತಕ(cid:5)ದು(cid:31). ಈ ! ನು(cid:18) ರದು(cid:31)ಪ$ಸುವ ಅಥ(ಾ )ದು(cid:31)ಪ$ರುವ ಹಕ(cid:5)ನು(cid:18) +ಾನು ಉ-./ೊಂ$ರು1ೆ2ೕ+ೆ. ಈ ! ನ3(cid:11) ನಮೂ4.ರುವ ಸ5)2ನ3(cid:11) ಮಹ$ ಮ+ೆ ಇದು(cid:31) ನನ(cid:18) ನಂತರ /ೆಳ7ಾಗದ ಮ+ೆಯ3(cid:11) ಎರಡ+ೇ ಮಗ .ಎ9. /ೇಶವಭ;ಾ<=ಾಯ>ರವರು ಮತು2 (cid:2)ೕ(cid:9)ಾ?ಗದ ಮ+ೆ .ಎ9. ಮುರು-ೕಧರಭmÁÖ=ಾಯ>ರವರು ಮ+ೆಯ3(cid:11) (ಾಸ Aಾ$/ೊಂ$ರತಕ(cid:5)ದು(cid:31). (cid:2)ೕಲ(cid:5)ಂಡ (cid:2)ೕ(cid:9)ಾ?ಗದ ಮ+ೆಯ3(cid:11) (ಾಸ Aಾ$ /ೊಂ$ರುವBದ/ೆ(cid:5) ಹಕು(cid:5) ಇರು1ೆ2ೕ ನCಾ ಪರ7ಾDೆ Aಾಡಲು ಹಕು(cid:5) ಇರುವB4ಲ(cid:11) ಅಲ(cid:11)Eೆ /ೆಳ 7ಾಗದ ಮ+ೆಗಳ3(cid:11) Fಾ$(cid:25)ೆ ಪGೆಯಲು .ಎ9. ಮುರು-ೕಧರಭ;ಾH=ಾಯ>ರವ(cid:24)(cid:25)ೆ ಹಕು(cid:5) ಇರುವB4ಲ(cid:11), Iಾ1ಾ> ಹಕು(cid:5) .ಎ9. /ೇಶವಭ;ಾ<=ಾಯ>ರವ(cid:24)(cid:25)ೆ Jೇ(cid:24)ರು1ೆ2." 4. This Court also deems it fit to cull out paragraphs 5 to 9 of the compromise petition filed before the probate court, which is extracted and reads as under: "೫. ಸದ(cid:24) (cid:9)ೋL ಅEಾಲM ದ3(cid:11) ಆOರುವ ಆPೆಯ ಮುQಾಂತರ ಅR>Eಾರರು ಮತು2 ಪS)(ಾ4ರವರು ಸದ(cid:24) 4+ಾಂಕ: ೨೦.೦೭.೧೯೯೨ ರ !/ಮರಣZಾಸನದ ಎ(cid:9)ಾ(cid:11) ಅಂಶಗ-ಗೂ ಬದ[DಾOರು1ಾ2Dೆ. ೬. ಅR>Eಾರರು ಮತು2 ಪS)(ಾ4 ಸದ(cid:24) ! ದ3(cid:11)ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಪS/ಾರ: ಪS)(ಾ4(cid:25)ೆ ಸದ(cid:24) ಮ+ೆಯ3(cid:11) +ೆಲ ಮಹ$ ಮತು2 ಅR>Eಾರರ(cid:25)ೆ ]ದಲ+ೇ Jಾ5^ೕನದಂ1ೆ ಮುಂದುವDೆಯವBದು. ಅದರಂ1ೆ ಅವರವರ ಕಂEಾಯವನು(cid:18) ಅವರವDೆ ಮಹ$, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR Iಾವ)./ೊಂಡು ಮುಂದುವDೆಯುವBದು. Jಾ54ೕನ/ೆ(cid:5) 1ೊಂದDೆ /ೊಡದಂ1ೆ ೭. ಅR>Eಾರರು ಮ+ೆ (cid:2)ೕ(cid:9)ೆ(cid:25)ೆ Cೊಗಲು Iಾವ_(cid:25)ೆ ಉಪ‘ೕಗಸಲು ಮತು2 aೕ(cid:24)ನ ;ಾbಂL ಇಬ?ರೂ ಉಪ‘ೕOಸಲು ಅR>Eಾರರು ಮತು2 ಪS)(ಾ4 ಈ DಾR ಪತSದ ಮುQಾಂತರ ಒde/ೊಂ$ರು1ಾ2Dೆ. ೮. ಅR>Eಾರರು ಮತು2 ಪS)(ಾ4 ಅವರವರ 7ಾಗ/ೆ(cid:5) ಬಂ4ರುವ ಮ+ೆ ಮಹ$ಗಳನು(cid:18) ಅವರವDೇ (cid:24)Iೇ(cid:24) ವ(cid:25)ೈDೆ Aಾ$./ೊಳhತಕ(cid:5)ದು(cid:31). ೯. ಈ DಾRಪತSದ3(cid:11)ರುವ ಎ(cid:9)ಾ(cid:11) ಅಂಶಗಳ(cid:16) jಾವBEೇ ಆkಷ, ಒ1ಾ2ಯ, ಅನುmತ ಪS7ಾವ ಮತು2 Fೆದ(cid:24)/ೆ ಇಲ(cid:11)Eೇ ಅR>Eಾರರು ಮತು2 ಪS)(ಾ4 ಇಬ?ರೂ ಓ4, ಓ4., /ೇ- ಸoಗಳ(cid:16) Aಾ$ರು1ಾ2Dೆ." 5. Upon a closer and meticulous reading of the Will executed by one Srirangaraja Bhattacharya, particularly the second page thereof, this Court finds that the testator has made a clear and unequivocal disposition of his property with specific allotments to his two sons. It is manifest from the text of the Will that the testator had consciously resolved to allot the ground floor of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR residential house to the husband of respondent No.2, while the first floor was to be exclusively allotted to the petitioner, to take effect upon the demise of the testator. The language employed in the schedule annexed to the Will leaves no room for ambiguity and evidences the deliberate and well-considered intent of the testator. The Will makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner was not only to be given the first floor but was also conferred with the liberty to make further constructions and to let out the premises as he deemed fit. Such liberty granted exclusively to the petitioner is an express affirmation of the testator's intention to secure for him an independent and distinct share in the property, separate from that of respondent No.2's husband, who was allotted the ground floor. 6. The contents of the Will, therefore, do not support any interpretation that would lead to a common or undivided ownership. On the contrary, the intent was to create a clear and separate allotment of specific portions - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR to each of the beneficiaries. Although the parties had subsequently entered into a compromise in the probate proceedings in P&SC No.15004/2015, thereby reaffirming the testamentary arrangement, the present contest raised by respondent Nos.2 to 4 is evidently an attempt to unsettle what was already resolved, both by the testator and by the parties themselves before the probate Court. This Court finds that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are seeking to rely upon a stray and concluding statement in the Will, wherein the testator expressed that in the event of the building collapsing, the vacant site should vest with respondent Nos.2 to 4. However, such a contingency clause cannot override or dilute the specific and primary bequests made earlier in the Will. The said clause, being conditional in nature, cannot be construed as negating the rights conferred upon the petitioner during the subsistence of the structure. 7. In view of the Will being admitted and acted upon by both parties, and in light of the clear - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR testamentary direction to allot the first floor to the petitioner, this Court is of the firm opinion that the respondent No.1 who is the competent authority for issuance of khatha has committed a grave error in not issuing a joint khatha in the names of both the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4. The authority was duty-bound to effect entries in accordance with the testamentary arrangement as well as the compromise decree recorded in P&SC No.15004/2015. Instead, the endorsement issued by respondent No.1 has failed to reflect the specific division as contemplated by the Will namely, the ownership of the first floor by the petitioner and the ground floor by respondent Nos.2 to 4. 8. The action of respondent No.1 in ignoring both the express directions in the Will and the subsequent compromise decree is patently arbitrary and has resulted in undermining the lawful and considered disposition made by the testator. The purpose of such entries in revenue records is to reflect the true nature of ownership and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR possession, particularly when the same has been conclusively resolved through testamentary and judicial proceedings. By issuing an ambiguous endorsement, respondent No.1 has not only defeated the testamentary intention of the deceased but also prolonged the dispute, contrary to the spirit of finality achieved in the probate proceedings. 9. The feeble contention advanced by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 that neither the Will nor the compromise decree creates any enforceable right or title in favour of the petitioner is wholly misconceived and legally untenable. Such an argument flies in the face of the express recitals in the Will and the admitted terms of compromise before the probate Court. The testamentary arrangement, having been duly admitted and acted upon, confers definite and recognizable rights in favour of the petitioner. The parties, having voluntarily consented to and affirmed the terms of the Will during the probate - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR proceedings, are estopped from now challenging the validity or effect of those arrangements. 10. This Court cannot countenance a situation where parties, after having resolved their disputes through lawful means, are permitted to reopen settled matters and indulge in further litigation over residential property which has already been the subject of a solemn testamentary arrangement. The clear intention of the testator and the mutual understanding subsequently recorded by the parties must be respected. Therefore, the endorsement impugned herein is liable to be set aside as being arbitrary and contrary to the lawful record. 11. The confusion expressed by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that katha cannot be issued by bifurcating a single residential structure is also unfounded and not supported by the legal position. In fact, such apprehension stands clarified by the legal advisor of respondent No.1, as evidenced from the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR communication produced at Annexure-F. It is evident from this document that bifurcation of the khatha, or at least a specific reference to the floor-wise division as per the Will and compromise, is both legally permissible and procedurally feasible. Hence, the reluctance of respondent No.1 to act in accordance with the Will and the decree is not only unjustified but also contrary to the internal legal opinion obtained by the very same authority. Accordingly, the endorsement issued by respondent No.1 is set aside, and respondent No.1 is directed to issue a bifurcated or suitably endorsed khatha reflecting the specific entitlements of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 as per the testamentary arrangement and the compromise decree. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:19579 WP No. 18630 of 2021 HC-KAR (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 12.05.2020 issued by respondent No.1, produced at Annexure-H, is hereby quashed; (iii) Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to effect a joint khatha in the names of the petitioner and respondent No.2, by specifically assigning the ground floor and first floor of the property in terms of the recitals contained in the Will and the compromise recorded in P&SC No.15004/2015, duly reflecting the respective shares and possession as mutually agreed upon. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48