( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed in the matter of mutation. This petition has been filed against the order dated 13-7-1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in RTS: appeal : 123: 1997-98 whereby the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Tahsildar after having opined that the respondent 2 has been the adopted son of Ningawa and that Ningawa had executed a Will in favour of 2nd respondent and therefore he is only entitled to succeed. On this basis, he set aside the order of the deputy Tahsildar who had ordered mutation in favour of the petitioners as well. ( 3 ) THE case in question involves a questions of fact as the learned Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the adoption as well as the execution of Will relied upon by the Assistant commissioner. These questions of fact can well be decided on merits after trial of the issues by the Civil Court. The writ jurisdiction is not meant for that purpose. Section 135 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act very clearly provides as per proviso thereof that in case where a person is aggrieved by any entry made in any record or register maintained, he may institute a suit against the person denying interest or interested to deny his title and the entry in record or the register shall be amended in accordance with the declarative decree passed in the suit. The order passed in appeal or revision may be final, but remedy for suit is open in view of the proviso. When I so opine, I also find support from a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Stumpp scheule and Somappa Private Limited v S. M. Chandrappa and Others. The material observations at page 496 read as under. "27. That however, does not mean that the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and consequential rectification of entries in the record of rights is not maintainable. Mr. Raghavendra rao for the plaintiff is, in our opinion, justified in contending that such a suit is maintainable and it is one of the remedies provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964". So far as it is relevant, Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act provides. Mr. Raghavendra rao for the plaintiff is, in our opinion, justified in contending that such a suit is maintainable and it is one of the remedies provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964". So far as it is relevant, Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act provides. "provided that if any person is aggrieved - as to any right of which he is in possession, -by an entry made in the record of register maintained under this Chapter, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877; and the entry in the record or register shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration". In this case, the plaintiff has been able to establish that all the parties including himself got the registration of occupancy rights as Kadim tenants in respect of lands in their respective holdings, but under a wrong Hissa number of S. No. 139. That mistake was perpetuated even in the order made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, because there were no disputes before him and there were no rival claims. Each was under the apparent belief that he got the registration of occupancy right in respect of his own holding. It was only when defendant 1 was trying to interfere with the rights of the plaintiff in regard to Schedule 'a' land, the necessity to file the suit for declaration and correction of entries in the record of rights arose. The plaintiff's suit is, therefore, maintainable under the proviso to Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act". I find support for my view from the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sriman Maharaja Niranjana Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugarajendra Mahaswamy matadipathy v Deputy Commissioner, Coorg, as per the observations made in paragraph 6 at page 1068 of that judgment. In the case of V. Srinivasa Murthy v The Special Deputy commissioner, a Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge solely on the ground that the party had a right of filing a suit as provided under the proviso to Section 135 of the Act. In the case of V. Srinivasa Murthy v The Special Deputy commissioner, a Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge solely on the ground that the party had a right of filing a suit as provided under the proviso to Section 135 of the Act. In the case of Janbhai v Deputy Commissioner also this Court did not admit the writ petition against the order passed in mutation matter and dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the remedy has been available to the petitioner to file a suit under the proviso to Section 135 of the Act. ( 4 ) THUS considered in my opinion, as it is one of the trite principles of law that where a party has got an alternative remedy and the case involved determination of question of fact and law, this court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226. I think it is just and proper as such to dismiss the writ petition as the petitioner has got an alternative remedy for filing a suit for declaration of title as well as if necessary to seek injunction. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have emphasised in very many cases that if statutory remedy is provided and fit one for the case, the party must be compelled to recourse to the statutory remedy. Hero, the questions of fact are involved regarding execution of Will, regarding adoption and there may be other like questions. The proper remedy being the suit, the writ petition has got to be dismissed. The writ petition is hereby dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy being available to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to file the suit in accordance with the proviso to Section 135 of the Act. Writ petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 1,100/ -.