Arunkumar and Others Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwar Revenue Division, Dharwar and Others

- sections 34 & 38 :[k.ramanna,j] suit for declaration and injunction - plaintiffs claiming to be owners of suit house there was oral partition between parties whereby suit house was allotted to plaintiffs - defendant denied partition and claimed to be in possession memo of partition and partition map produced by plaintiff, though unregistered documents, showed his possession over suit house - defendants were in no way related to same they failed to produce any document to prove ownership held, defendants are therefore restrained from interfering with possession of plaintiffs over suit house. prayer of plaintiffs to declare them to be dismissed as unregistered documents and mutation entry will not confer any ownership rights on plaintiffs. .....this appeal is filed assailing the judgment of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition.2. the case of the appellants is that they filed an application for mutation of their names on the basis of a registered will executed by the testator. according to the facts of the case, the testator registered the will and thereafter cancelled the same. relying on those wills, the appellants filed a petition for mutation. the contesting respondent filed objections stating that there is another will executed by the testator. that request was carried to the high court in a writ petition. the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the parties have to approach the civil court to sort out their rights to the land as there are rival claims.3. learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that when there is a registered document, there is a duty on the tahsildar to make an entry. if any other person has got a right, he has to go and establish it in a civil court. learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment in hanumantha gowda v gidde gowda. we see no dispute about the proposition laid down in the said judgment. in this case, there are rival claims. one is registered and another is an ordinary will. the ordinary will is not produced. we cannot give a finding as to which will is correct to be acted upon. therefore, the learned single judge is correct in directing the appellant to approach the civil court. we further make it clear that the revenue authorities while exercising their jurisdiction and duties under chapter 6 of the land revenue act,if they find there are rival claims or title, they have to direct the parties to the civil court. the authorities shall not subject the parties to multiplicity of litigations which is neither in the interest of the state nor in the interest of the litigants. in view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with costs of rs. 1,000/-.