LALITHAWWA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAVERI SUB DIVISION HAVERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed in the matter of mutation. This petition has been filed against the order dated 13-7-1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in RTS: appeal : 123: 1997-98 whereby the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Tahsildar after having opined that the respondent 2 has been the adopted son of Ningawa and that Ningawa had executed a Will in favour of 2nd respondent and therefore he is only entitled to succeed. On this basis, he set aside the order of the deputy Tahsildar who had ordered mutation in favour of the petitioners as well.

(3.) THE case in question involves a questions of fact as the learned Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the adoption as well as the execution of Will relied upon by the Assistant commissioner. These questions of fact can well be decided on merits after trial of the issues by the Civil Court. The writ jurisdiction is not meant for that purpose. Section 135 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act very clearly provides as per proviso thereof that in case where a person is aggrieved by any entry made in any record or register maintained, he may institute a suit against the person denying interest or interested to deny his title and the entry in record or the register shall be amended in accordance with the declarative decree passed in the suit. The order passed in appeal or revision may be final, but remedy for suit is open in view of the proviso. When I so opine, I also find support from a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Stumpp scheule and Somappa Private Limited v S. M. Chandrappa and Others. The material observations at page 496 read as under.