Satappa and Another vs The Deputy Commissioner and Others

V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The petitioners, Annappa Narasgond and Venkappa Narasgond are brothers. Smt. Susheelavva is the wife of deceased Annappa Narasgond and sister of respondents 4 and 5. After the death of Annappa Narasgond, the names of petitioners and Smt. Susheelavva were mutated vide M.E. No. 9405. According to the petitioners, Smt. Susheelavva under a Will dated 14-9-2001 bequeathed the properties mentioned in the writ petition in favour of respondents 4 and 5. After the death of Smt. Susheelavva, respondents 4 and 5 sought mutation of their names and the same was sanctioned vide M.E. No. 10865 under Annexure-A. The appeal preferred against the same was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner under Annexure-B, dated 5-2-2004. Revision petition filed thereon was also rejected under Annexure-C, dated 29-4-2004 observing to approach the competent Civil Court. Petitioners are seeking to quash Annexures-A, B and C and a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to enter their names in the revenue records.

According to the petitioners, the properties are joint family properties; that they have got share in the properties and that the Will in favour of respondents 4 and 5 does not confer any right upon them. The decision in C.N. Nagendra Singh Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner and Others, is pressed into service.

A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-A reveals that some of the properties are the self-acquired properties of deceased Annappa Narasgond and the remaining properties fell to his share in the partition as per M.E. No. 4802. After the death of Annappa Narasgond, M.E. No. 9405 was entered in the name of his wife Smt. Susheelavva as Class I heir. Thus, she being the absolute owner of the properties, had every right to execute the Will in favour of respondents 4 and 5. The petitioners cannot claim that they are the joint family properties and they have got share in them. Since there was partition among the brothers and M.E. No. 4802 was made in favour of husband of deceased Susheelavva, the claim of the petitioners is wholly untenable. In fact, petitioners have not at all mentioned about M.E. No. 4802.

The order at Annexure-A is rightly confirmed in appeal and the revisional authority has rightly observed that if the petitioners still want to pursue their claim, they can approach the competent Civil Court. Hence, the decision relied upon the petitioners will not support their case. Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.