Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CJ, MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND, J
SMT. MUNIDASAMMA – Appellant
Versus
SRI. Y. B. KRISHNAPPA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the dispute essentially centers around (Para 3) |
| 2. learned single judge took the view (Para 4) |
| 3. the reasons supplied by learned single judge (Para 5) |
| 4. in the totality of facts and circumstances (Para 6 , 7) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr. B.R. Vishwanath for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. M.N. Sudev Hegde for respondent-State and its authorities and learned advocate Mr. P. Chidananda for respondent No.1-original petitioner.
3. The dispute essentially centers around the mutation entry in respect of the property in question. The mutation entry stood in favour of the original petitioner on the basis of a probated Will executed in favour of the petitioner by Smt. Munivenkatamma. Since respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner set aside the said mutation entry, the petitioner had an occasion to file the writ petition before learned Single Judge.
5. The reasons supplied by learned Single Judge could not book any error since the petitioner would claim mutation entry in the revenue records on the basis of probate standing in his favour. Another factual aspect in the controversy was that in Original Suit No.6534 of 1996, decree has been pas
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
