Karnataka High CourtWills, Inheritance, and TrustsProperty and Real Estate Law

Karnataka HC Keeps Deceased Mother’s Name In Land Records For 1 Acre 23 Guntas Pending Probate Challenge

SHRI. NINGAPPAv.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI

Karnataka HC Keeps Deceased Mother’s Name In Land Records For 1 Acre 23 Guntas Pending Probate Challenge. SHRI. NINGAPPA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner erred in directing cancellation of the petitioners’ mutation entries while proceedings to revoke the probate remained pending

The court held

The Court disposed of both writ petitions.

It also directed

It declined to quash the Deputy Commissioner’s order or restore the mutation entries exclusively in the petitioners’ names.

Gangawwa’s name is to continue in the revenue records until disposal of the proceedings in P & SC No. 19/2020, with the parties’ rights remaining subject to the outcome of those proceedings

01Facts

The dispute concerned 1 acre 23 guntas of land and a house property at Kallolli, originally recorded in the name of Gangawwa.

pp. 5–8

The petitioners claimed through Gangawwa’s Will dated 28 September 2018.

pp. 5–8

After probate was granted in P & SC No. 19/2020, their names were entered in the revenue records; the respondents challenged the probate and the related mutation orders.

pp. 5–8

In MFA No. 102111/2024, the High Court reserved liberty to seek revocation of the probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act and stayed its operation.

pp. 5–8

The respondents’ revocation application remained pending when the Deputy Commissioner directed cancellation of the petitioners’ mutation entries.

pp. 5–8

The petitioners challenged that order and sought restoration of their entries

pp. 5–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner erred in directing cancellation of the petitioners’ mutation entries while proceedings to revoke the probate remained pending

pp. 7–9

ii.2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to restoration of mutation entries exclusively in their names before the probate challenge was determined

pp. 8–9

03Law Applied

The Court applied no substantive statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.

pp. 7–9

It noted that the respondents had been given liberty to seek revocation of the probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act and that the validity and effect of the Will—and the parties’ rights arising from it—were to be determined in the pending probate proceedings.

pp. 7–9

The Court treated continuation of the deceased’s name in the revenue records as appropriate pending that determination.

pp. 7–9

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 263

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 14

04Reasoning

The petitioners’ claim to the property depended on Gangawwa’s Will and the probate granted in P & SC No. 19/2020.

pp. 8–9

Because the respondents’ application to revoke that probate was pending, the Court considered it premature to maintain the petitioners’ names as the operative mutation holders.

pp. 8–9

It found no error in the Deputy Commissioner’s order, which made the petitioners’ position subject to the outcome of the probate proceedings, and directed that Gangawwa’s name remain in the revenue records until those proceedings were disposed of

pp. 8–9

05Holding

The Court disposed of both writ petitions.

p. 9

It declined to quash the Deputy Commissioner’s order or restore the mutation entries exclusively in the petitioners’ names.

p. 9

Gangawwa’s name is to continue in the revenue records until disposal of the proceedings in P & SC No. 19/2020, with the parties’ rights remaining subject to the outcome of those proceedings

p. 9
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SHRI. NINGAPPAvsTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI

Karnataka High Court · October 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment