Mutation Cannot Be Granted Solely on the Basis of a Will Without Civil Court Adjudication: Karnataka High Court

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, which directed the restoration of the original owner's name (petitioner's mother) in the revenue records. The Court ruled that mutation based on a will requires prior proof of its validity in a civil court, particularly when a partition suit is pending.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, presiding over the matter, relied on the Full Bench decision in C.N. Nagendra Singh v. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (ILR 2002 KAR 2750), which held that “revenue authorities cannot determine the genuineness of a will, and such issues must be settled by competent civil courts.”

Will-Based Mutation Denied Due to Pending Partition Suit
The case revolves around agricultural land measuring 1 acre 85 guntas in Sy. No. 27/RS/5 and 0.5 acres in Sy. No. 27/RS/3, located in Kodimbady village, Dakshina Kannada District. The properties originally belonged to Kamalamma, the mother of both the petitioner, Sri. Ullas Kotian, and respondent No. 5, Sri. K.V. Purushothama Kukyan.

The petitioner sought mutation of the land in his name based on a will dated 05-11-2019. Respondent No. 5 (petitioner's brother) challenged this mutation before the Assistant Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal, citing that a partition suit was already pending. The Deputy Commissioner reversed the Assistant Commissioner’s decision, ruling that the mother’s name should be retained in the revenue records until the partition suit is adjudicated. The petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that his mutation should remain valid based on the will.

Mutation Proceedings Cannot Determine the Validity of a Will
The Karnataka High Court reiterated that “revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide the authenticity of a will” and cited the Full Bench ruling in C.N. Nagendra Singh v. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (ILR 2002 KAR 2750): “Revenue courts cannot adjudicate on the genuineness of a will; such matters must be decided by civil courts.”

Thus, the Court held that mutation cannot be granted based on a will unless it is proved in a civil suit.

Proof of Will Under the Indian Succession Act & Evidence Act
Emphasizing the necessity of legal compliance, the Court stated: “Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a will must be proved through strict legal compliance, including the attestation of two witnesses, examination of witnesses in a civil suit, and establishing that the testator executed the will in a sound state of mind.”

The Court concluded that the petitioner must first establish the will’s authenticity in the pending partition suit before claiming mutation rights.

Revenue Records Do Not Confer Ownership – Retaining the Mother’s Name is Justified
Clarifying the nature of revenue records, the Court observed: “Revenue records are fiscal entries and do not determine ownership rights. When inheritance is contested, the original owner’s name should be retained until final adjudication in a civil suit.”

Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner’s direction to retain the mother’s name in the revenue records was deemed legally sound.

No Interference by High Court – Petitioner Must Prove Rights in Civil Court
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum concluded that the writ petition was devoid of merit and stated:

“Unless the petitioner proves the will’s validity in the civil court, he cannot claim mutation rights. The Deputy Commissioner’s order aligns with legal principles and does not warrant interference.”

The Court dismissed the petition while allowing the petitioner to present evidence and substantiate the genuineness of the will in the pending partition suit.

Key Legal Takeaways from the Judgment
The Karnataka High Court emphasized that revenue authorities cannot decide the validity of a will, as this falls within the jurisdiction of civil courts. It reiterated that mutation entries do not confer ownership and that in cases of disputed inheritance, the original owner’s name should remain in revenue records. The Court further held that a will must be proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act before it can be used for mutation.

The judgment aligns with previous legal precedents, including Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, which held that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to determine ownership in disputed cases, and C.N. Nagendra Singh v. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, ILR 2002 KAR 2750, which clarified that mutation based on a will requires proof in a civil court.

Final Verdict – Writ Petition Dismissed
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Deputy Commissioner’s order to retain the mother’s name in revenue records until the partition suit is decided. The petitioner must prove the will’s validity in civil court before seeking mutation based on it.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum concluded: “This order will not be an impediment for the petitioner herein to lead cogent evidence and substantiate the genuineness of the will in the pending suit.”

The judgment serves as a cautionary precedent for individuals seeking mutation based on a will, emphasizing that proof in a civil suit is mandatory before asserting mutation rights.
 

Date of Decision: 09 January 2025