Women Claiming Inheritance Keep Mutation As Karnataka HC Says 2019 Family Decree Cannot By Itself Displace 90-Year Revenue Entries

The dispute concerned Sy. No. 4/1 at Bugudanahalli Amanikere Village. Respondents 6 and 7 claimed inheritance through Ranganna, said to be a descendant of the original owner, Suryanarayanappa.

The appellant claimed through his grandfather Kempalaiah, relying on a registered sale deed dated 11 October 1933 and a 1937 partition deed. Suryanarayanappa’s name remained in the revenue records for decades.

In 2019, the appellant obtained a compromise decree and final decree in a partition suit among his family members, without impleading persons claiming through Suryanarayanappa.

The Assistant Commissioner directed mutation in favour of respondents 6 and 7; the Deputy Commissioner later set that order aside and directed action in accordance with the decree. The writ court set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s order, restored the Assistant Commissioner’s order, and reserved the appellant’s liberty to seek a declaration in a civil suit. The appellant challenged that decision in this writ appeal.

The Court considered Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, under which the Deputy Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction over the revenue proceedings.

It applied the principle that revenue entries and mutation proceedings do not determine disputed title; a person asserting title against competing claimants may seek adjudication before the competent civil court, and revenue entries may be altered in accordance with the resulting declaration.

The Court held that the uninterrupted appearance of Suryanarayanappa’s name in the revenue records for nearly 90 years was a relevant circumstance, particularly because the appellant’s predecessors had not sought mutation on the basis of the 1933 sale deed.

The compromise decree and final decree in the appellant’s family partition suit could not, by themselves, justify disturbing the existing entries or defeat the claims of persons asserting inheritance through the original owner, since those claimants were not parties to the suit. Nor did the dismissal for non-prosecution of a separate suit establish that respondents 6 and 7 were not Suryanarayanappa’s heirs.

Because the writ court preserved the appellant’s right to pursue a civil declaration of title, the Court found no perversity or illegality requiring appellate interference.

The appellant remained at liberty to seek a declaration of title in the competent civil court; there was no order as to costs.