The petitioners claim that Smt. Sonnamma was the

owner of a site bearing old No.188, new No.42 situate at

4

Tubarahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk,

and measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 40

feet (henceforth referred to as "site in question") presently

included within the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara

Palike ('BBMP' for short).

Petitioners claim that Smt. Sonnamma was

granted the site in question in the year 1973 and that all

the revenue records stood in her name. They alleged that

Smt. Sonnamma could not personally look after and

manage the site in question and therefore, she executed a

Power of Attorney dated 12.06.1996 in favour of Sri.

S.Somasundar, the father of the petitioner No.1 and the

brother of petitioner No.2. Petitioners further claim that

the said Sri. S.Somasundar executed a gift deed dated

04.10.2012 in their favour and conveyed the site to them.

Following the above, the names of the petitioners were

entered in the assessment records of the BBMP. They

alleged that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 though having no

manner of right, title or interest in respect of the site in

5

question, challenged the khata made in favour of the

petitioners before the respondent No.3 which was later

entertained as an appeal before the respondent No.2. The

petitioners allege that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 claimed

that

Smt.

Sonnamma

had

executed

a

Will

dated

19.11.1992 in favour of Sri P.Someshwarappa, the

husband of respondent No.4 and the father of respondent

No.5. The petitioners contended that Smt. Sonnamma

having once executed the Power of Attorney, had

transferred title, possession and enjoyment of the site in

question to Sri. S.Somasundar, the predecessor of the

petitioners.

They

allege

that

the

respondent

No.2

entertained the appeal and transferred the khata to the

name of the respondent No.4. The petitioners contend that

the respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with others had filed

O.S.No.3977/2013 against Sri Somasundar S., the father

of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 and another

before the Court of V Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bengaluru, for partition and separate possession

which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 31.10.2014.

6

The petitioners therefore have challenged the Order of the

respondent No.2 dated 12.11.2014 cancelling the khata

effected in their names in respect of the site in question

while upholding the change of khata in the name of the

respondent

No.4

contending

that

the

Will

dated

19.11.1992 propounded by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 is

not proved in accordance with law and the respondent

No.2 has no authority to adjudicate upon the valid

execution of the Will.

The learned counsel for petitioners submitted

that the petitioner No.1 herein (since deceased) and

petitioner No.2 filed a suit in O.S. No.9134/2014 for

declaration of title and permanent injunction against the

respondents herein in respect of the site in question before

the Court of X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru, and the said suit came to be dismissed for non-

prosecution in terms of the Order of the Trial Court dated

22.02.2018. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

No.1 herein (since deceased) and petitioner No.2 herein

7

preferred petition in Misc. No.563/2018 and the same is

pending consideration before the Court of X Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that Smt. Sonnamma

died on 04.05.2011. Later, the name of the respondent

No.4 was entered in the assessment extract relating to

property bearing khata No.1314 while the petitioners had

also got their names entered in respect of the very same

property. He therefore submits that the respondent Nos.4

and 5 initiated proceedings under Section 114A of the

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. He thus

submitted that the respondent No.2 was justified in

ordering entry of the name of the respondent No.4 in the

assessment regis