A life interest grants possessory rights without ownership, allowing for a separate khata for the life interest holder while ensuring all legal heirs are recognized in property records.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner No.1 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

"a) A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.DA/W-165/KTR/88/22-23 dtd. 12/07/2022 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Banashankari Zone, Bengaluru, second respondent and produced as Annexure-A.

b) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-F for change of khata in respect of the property bearing No.806, 16th Main, 19th Cross, Banashankari-II Stage, Bengaluru - 560 070, the subject property, by rejecting the objections filed by the third respondent.

c) Pass such order, writ, or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case or as the situation demands in the interest of justice."

2. The first petitioner is the wife, second, third and fourth petitioners are the sons and the third respondent is the daughter of the late H A Veerabhadrappa, who was the absolute owner of the property bearing No.806, 16th Main, 19th Cross, Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru-560 070. The said H.A.Veerabhadrappa expired on 27/4/2022 leaving a Will, under which, a life interest was created in favour of petitioner No.1 and thereafter, the property was to devolve on petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.3. Petitioner No.1 on the basis of life interest created in her favour, made an application to the respondent - Corporation for issuance of khata in her name, which came to be rejected by respondent No.2 vide endorsement dtd. 12/7/2022 calling upon the petitioner to obtain a release deed from respondent No.3, since respondent No.3 had objected to the application filed by the petitioner. It is in that background, the petitioner No.1 initially filed the above petition before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. Petitioners No. 2 to 4 were added subsequently there being no conflict of interest between Petitioner No.1 on the one hand and Petitioners No. 2 to 4 on the other.

4. Sri K M Balasubramanya, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a life interest having been created in favour of petitioner No.1, the khata is required to be made out in the name of petitioner No.1 for her to better enjoy the property. Merely because, an objection has been filed by respondent No.3 - the daughter who gets a right in the property post the expiry of petitioner No.1 could not enable or entitle respondent No.2 to demand a release deed to be executed by respondent No.3 in favour of petitioner No.1. On this ground, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and certiorari be issued to quash the endorsement and mandamus be issued to respondent No.2 to issue a khata in favour of petitioner No.1.

5. Sri K S Mallikarjun Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 on appearance was directed to enquire and make a submission if there was a policy or a procedure available with the Corporation to deal with this kind of cases, where there is life interest created. On instructions, today he submits that there is no such policy or procedure and in all such circumstances, the applicable inheritance laws would be taken into consideration and wherever a person were to rely on a Will necessary letter of administration or the like would have to be produced. In this regard, he places his reliance on Sec. 149 of the BBMP Act, 2020 and submits that whenever, there are one or more claimants to the property or legal heirs, their names would be entered and the khata certificate issued. There is no provision for issuance of khatha certificate only on the basis of life interest, there is no separate entry which would be made.

6. Heard Sri K M Balasubramanya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K S Mallikarjun Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 though served has not entered appearance and service has been held sufficient.

7. The points that would arise for determinati