##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

WRIT PETITON No.31326 OF 2025

DATE: 24-03-2026

Between:

Mrs. Burram Sandhya Rani ... Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.

... Respondents

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the

action of respondent No.4 in rejecting her Bhu Bharati online application vide File No.25003933071 dated 08.09.2025 for succession/mutation in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.2-05 guntas and Ac.0-20 guntas in Survey Nos.311అ and 319రు respectively total admeasuring Acs.2-25 guntas situated at Nagilla Village, Madgal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution

2

of India and consequently direct respondent No.4 to mutate her

name in revenue records in respect of the subject property.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, late Mr. Burram Mahipal, was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land. He was issued e-pattadar pass book bearing No.T05150030228 with Khata No.353. Apart from the subject property, late Mr. Burram Mahipal also owned, Plot No.20 admeasuring 150 square yards situated at Polepally, Ramnagar Village, Chintalpally Mandal, Nalgonda District, and another property bearing H.No.2-2-

185/24/63 in Plot No.63 admeasuring 116 square yards.

3. It is stated that during his lifetime, late Mr. Burram Mahipal executed Will Deed bearing document No.88/III/2021 dated 01.03.2021 bequeathing his three (3) properties in the following

manner:

(a) The subject property to an extent of Acs.2-05 guntas out

of Acs.2-25 guntas in Survey Nos.311అ and 319రు to his grandson, Master Burram Keerthan Kumar (3 years at the

3

time of execution) with his mother (respondent No.5) as

nominee;

(b) The remaining part of subject property Ac.0-20 guntas to

his daughter, Mrs. B. Radhika - respondent No.6.

Further, there is a stipulation in Will Deed that it will come into

effect after his death and his spouse i.e., the petitioner herein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid stipulation clearly confers life interest on the petitioner over the subject property. The petitioner is entitled to enjoy the subject property during her lifetime. Though, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are beneficiaries of the Will, the testamentary bequest is postponed until the demise of the petitioner. It is submitted that under Section 119 read with Section 120 of the Indian Succession Act 1925, when a bequest is made to take effect after death of a particular person, it implies that such person holds a life interest in the property during their lifetime. Further, as per Sections 19 and 21 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a vested interest takes effect only subject to prior life interest and the enjoyment of such vested interest is

postponed until the determination of the life estate.

4

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though subject property is said to be devolved on respondent Nos.5 and 6, the petitioner cannot be deprived of her rightful use and enjoyment of the property. If succession is not granted to the petitioner, it is as good as the petitioner being deprived of her life interest over the

subject property which was stipulated in the Will Deed.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and her family members has to be resolved before the competent Civil Court, as the dispute herein is regarding the bequest of the property under Will Deed. It is admitted case of the petitioner that bequest is deferred until her demise and the beneficiaries/legatees under the Will Deed are respondent Nos.5 and 6. In any case, all these issues cannot be decided by the Revenue Officer as it involves complicated questions of interpretation of terms and conditions of the Will Deed. There

are n