DESAI, J. ( 1 ) THE property. in dispute is premises bearing Old No. 5 (New No. 24) consisting of main building, side house, compound and out-houses, open area etc. , situate in puttanna Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. 4. The said property stood in the name of rangamma, also called as Rangammal; in the Corporation records as khatedar as she had purchased the property when her two sons Srinivasan and Raja lyengar were minors. On 7-4-1939, the aforesaid owners under a registered sale deed, sold the said property to one Smt. Krishna Bai W/o G. Narayana Rao. Even then, the name of the former khatedar Rangamma who died prior to 1939 continued to be as khatedar in the corporation records. On 20-4-45, said krishna Bai executed a Will giving the life estate to respondent No. 4 and vested remainder to her two sons, the petitioner and his brother G. N. Nagaraja Rao (since deceased ). She died on 17-2-48. Under the will, respondent No. 4 was given the right to reside in the portion of the petition premises and also to collect rents from the tenants in the other portions till her death and after her death, the said property should go to her two sons namely, the petitioner and his brother g. N. Nagaraja Rao (since deceased ). ( 2 ) ON 5-6-78 the petitioner filed an application for transferring the khata of the said property in his name as per Exhibit-D to the Corporation basing his claim on the Will of Krishna Bai. After holding an enquiry, the revenue Officer of the Corporation issued an endorsement as per Exhibit-G to the effect that his request regarding transfer of khata of the above said property in his favour cannot be considered during the life time of smt. Seetha Bai (respondent No. 4) in view of the Will left by her mother. His appeal against the said endorsement was dismissed as not maintainable by the Administrator (respondent No. 3) as per Exhibit-H. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner for quashing Exhibits G and H, and for directing respondent Numbers 2 and 3 to enter his name as owner of the petition-premises. ( 3 ) MR. His appeal against the said endorsement was dismissed as not maintainable by the Administrator (respondent No. 3) as per Exhibit-H. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner for quashing Exhibits G and H, and for directing respondent Numbers 2 and 3 to enter his name as owner of the petition-premises. ( 3 ) MR. C. Laxminarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that mere fact that possession of the estate bequeathed is to be given at a future time is not by itself a reason for coming to the conclusion that the estate was not to be vested at the time of the testator's death, and the mere interposition of a life estate will not prevent the remainder from being a vested one, as observed in akkaraju VISVANADAM AND others v DATHALUR ANJANEYALU and ANOTHER (AIR 1935 Madras, 865 ). ( 4 ) MR. R. C. Castelino, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, urged that during the life time of respondent No. 4, she is entitled to occupy a portion of the building and to collect rents in respect of the other portions and therefore, the liability to pay property tax rests on her as per the provisions of section 112 of the Karnataka Municipal corporations Act, 1976 (for short the 'act') read with Section 2 (26) of the Act and so, the order of the Corporation rejecting the application of the petitioner for change of khata is proper. In the alternative, he stated that he had no objection to direct respondents 1 and 2 to enter the names of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 as owners of the said premises under the Will in view of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the observations of MAYNE at pages 1110 and 1111 in his Book 'hindu LAW AND usage', 1986 Edition. Mr. S. P. Shankar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 urged that as the petitioner has no immediate right under the Will and as respondent No. 4 becomes the absolute owner of the property in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession act, the name of the petitioner cannot be entered in the property tax register of the corporation. Mr. S. P. Shankar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 urged that as the petitioner has no immediate right under the Will and as respondent No. 4 becomes the absolute owner of the property in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession act, the name of the petitioner cannot be entered in the property tax register of the corporation. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed that Krishna Bai who was the owner of the property in question left behind her a Will dated 20-4-1945 giving the right to stay in the premises and to collect rents in respect of the other portions of the premises to respondent No. 4 during her life lime. It is also stated in the Will that after the death of respondent No. 4, the petitioner and his late brother G. N. Nagaraja rao were to take the said property unless they decide to give it to respondent No. 4. The definition of 'owner' under sub-section 26 of Section 2 of the Act is an inclusive definition. According to it, 'owner' includes the person for the time being receiving or entitled to receive, whether on his own account or as agent, trustee, guardian, manager or receiver for another person or for any religious or charitable purpose, the rent or profits of the property in connection with which the word is used. Section 119 of the Indian Succession Act reads thus :"where by the terms of a bequest the legatee is not entitled to immediate possession of the thing bequeathed, a right to receive it at the proper time shall, unless a contrary intention appears by the will, become vested in the legatee on the testator's death, and shall pass to the legatee's representatives if he dies before that time and without having received the legacy, and in such cases the legacy is from the testator's death said to be vested in interest. "according to the Explanation to the said section, an intention that a legacy to any person shall not become vested in interest in him is not to be inferred merely from a provision where by the payment or possession of the thing bequeathed is postponed, or whereby a prior interest therein is bequeathed to some other person or whereby the income arising from the fund bequeathed is directed to be accumulated until the time of payment arrives, or from a provision that, if a particular event shall happen, the legacy shall go over to another person. In BICKERSTETH v SHANU (AIR 1936 PC 123, the Privy Council held that the established rule for construing devises of real estate is that they are to be held to be vested unless a condition precedent to the vesting is expressed with reasonable clearness. In N. RAMASWAMY naicker AND OTHERS v V. G. RAMASWAMY NAICKER AND OTHERS (AIR 1977 NOC 341 (MADRAS.), it was held that if an absolute estate is devised to B after the lifetime of A, it is not a contingent interest that 8 gets, but a vested right that he gets and that does not matter if B predeceased A. In AKKARAJU VISVANADHAM AND others v DATHALUR ANJANEYALU and ANOTHER (AIR 1935 Madras, 865), it was held that the mere fact that possession of the estate bequeathed is to be given at a future time is not by itself a reason for coming to the conclusion that the estate was not to be vested at the time of the testator's death, and that the mere interposition of a life estate will not prevent the remainder from being a vested one. ( 6 ) ON going through the copy of the Will, which was supplied to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is found that there is nothing in it to show the contrary intention of the testatrix. Therefore, in view of the Will of Krishna Bai, the name of the petitioner and the name of respondent No. 4 ought to have been entered in the property tax register of the respondent- Corporation. Therefore, in view of the Will of Krishna Bai, the name of the petitioner and the name of respondent No. 4 ought to have been entered in the property tax register of the respondent- Corporation. According to sub-section (2) of Section 114 of the Act, in the event of the death of any person primarily liable as aforesaid, the person to whom the title of the deceased shall be transferred as heir or otherwise shall give notice of such transfer to the commissioner within one year from the death of the deceased. In this case, notice was given by the petitioner that his name should be entered as heir of Krishna Bai in view of her Will. It is seen from the Will that respondent No. 4 was given life estate in the said property and so her name also has to be entered although she has not given notice, because, she was given notice and she was also heard during the enquiry by the revenue Officer as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mere change of khata will not confer any title on any body and it is open to respondent No. 4 to agitate the question as to whether she becomes the absolute owner of the property in view of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act in the competent Civil Court if she is so advised and if she so desires. ( 7 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute. Exhibit-G is quashed and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to enter the names of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 as khatedars of the property in the property tax or register in place of Rangamma who was the original owner and whose name was entered in the property tax register. No costs. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .