MALLANA GOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LA. No. II is filed by the applicants seeking to come on record as the L.Rs. of the petitioner who died on 2-12-1995 on the basis of a registered will dated 15-12-1992 in favour of the applicants. Another LA. dated 15-2-1996 is filed by the applicants who claim to be the sons of Rudragowda Patil and who want to come on record as Class I heirs of deceased Mallanagouda.

(2.) I have heard the Counsel for the applicants, Counsel for respondent 3 and the Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the records of the case.

(3.) Petitioner Mallanagouda filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in the lands in question. The Tribunal rejected his claim and dismissed his Form No. 7. The petitioner filed this writ petition praying to quash that order of the Land Tribunal. It is not disputed that petitioner Mallanagouda died on 2-12-1995. LA. No. II is filed by the applicants who claim to be the sons of one Fakiragouda Patil, who was the brother of Mallanagouda. In the LA., it is stated by them that by virtue of a Will executed by the petitioner on 14-12-1992 in their favour, they are entitled to come on record. The Will is not admitted by the other side. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the disputed questions which are required to be decided after elucidating of evidence cannot be gone into. Moreover, it is well settled principle of law that the tenancy rights cannot be willed away by a Will. Therefore, the claim of the applicants in LA. No. II to come on record by virtue of that Will cannot be permitted. Hence, LA. No. II is liable to be dismissed.