L.KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is tracing right and title in the petition land through his mother Chamundamma. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner, who has reversed the order of respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner.

(2.) Facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner has furnished family tree and the relevant portion is culled out, which is as under:

(3.) The petitioner claims to be the son of one Chamundamma, who is the daughter of Smt. Puttarasamma, the original owner of the property in dispute. It is undisputed that the property was owned by Smt. Puttarasamma, who had three sons and one daughter, named Chamundamma. The private respondents, however, assert that upon the death of Puttarasamma, Chamundamma, the petitioner's mother, consented to the mutation of the property in favor of the three sons, thereby relinquishing her claim over it. The mutation in favor of the three sons was carried out in 1980, and it was contended that Chamundamma did not object to the mutation at that time. Moreover, the private respondents argue that Chamundamma officially relinquished her share of the property in 1999. These are critical details that must be considered when determining whether the petitioner can rightfully claim a share in the property. While the petitioner seeks to assert a claim over the property of his maternal grandmother, the issues of inheritance and the validity of the mutation require a thorough legal analysis, particularly as it pertains to the petitioner's rights. The petitioner must seek appropriate legal recourse through a civil suit before the competent court to resolve these disputes, as the issues raised are civil in nature and not within the purview of this Court.