01Facts
The dispute concerned 1 acre 23 guntas of land and a house property at Kallolli, originally recorded in the name of Gangawwa.
pp. 5–8The petitioners claimed through Gangawwa’s Will dated 28 September 2018.
pp. 5–8After 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. 5–8In 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. 5–8The respondents’ revocation application remained pending when the Deputy Commissioner directed cancellation of the petitioners’ mutation entries.
pp. 5–8The petitioners challenged that order and sought restoration of their entries
pp. 5–802Issues
i.1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner erred in directing cancellation of the petitioners’ mutation entries while proceedings to revoke the probate remained pending
pp. 7–9ii.2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to restoration of mutation entries exclusively in their names before the probate challenge was determined
pp. 8–903Law Applied
The Court applied no substantive statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.
pp. 7–9It 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. 7–9The Court treated continuation of the deceased’s name in the revenue records as appropriate pending that determination.
pp. 7–9Provisions 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. 8–9Because 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. 8–9It 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. 8–905Holding
The Court disposed of both writ petitions.
p. 9It declined to quash the Deputy Commissioner’s order or restore the mutation entries exclusively in the petitioners’ names.
p. 9Gangawwa’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. 9Original Court PDF
SHRI. NINGAPPAvsTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
