JUDGMENT : The Petitioner is calling in question the order dated 30-8-2007 passed in R. Misc. No 28 of 2005-06. The said order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the same is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the brother of late Gangadhar Menon. The said Gangadhar Menon had owned an extend of 2 acres 19 gundas in Sy. No. 39 of Gavatur Village, Hosanagar Taluk. The said land had been granted to him on 30-4-1986. Out of the said extent of land granted, Sri Gangadhar Menon during his lifetime had sold an extent of 28 guntas to the fourth respondent herein under a sale deed dated 28-5-2002. The remaining extent is said to have been retained by the said Gangadhar Menon. When this was the position. Gangadhar Menon died on 27-11-2002. The petitioner being the natural successor claims right to the property. 3. On the other hand, the fourth respondent has claimed right to the said property under a Will dated 1-7-1999. Based on the Will and the Revenue Inspector’s report, the Tahsildar has mutated the name of fourth respondent vide M.R. No. 7 of 2003–04. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same was before the Assistant Commissioner in Appeal No. RA 169 of 2003-04 filed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, the ‘Act’). The Assistant Commissioner after noticing the rival contentions was of the view that the Revenue Authorities in any case cannot decide upon the validity of the Will and as such the Tahsildar would have to at the first instance determine as to whether the petitioner is the brother of late Gangadhar Menon and thereby the natural successor. It is only thereafter appropriate order was directed to be passed. 4. The fourth respondent who was claiming to be aggrieved by the said order dated 9-1-2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner was before the Deputy Commissioner in a revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the Act, The Deputy Commissioner also has noticed the fact that the Revenue Authorities cannot decide upon the validity of the Will. However, the Deputy Commissioner has directed that the mutation entry shall be retrained and if at all the petitioner herein is aggrieved, it is open for him to secure appropriate orders from the Civil Court. However, the Deputy Commissioner has directed that the mutation entry shall be retrained and if at all the petitioner herein is aggrieved, it is open for him to secure appropriate orders from the Civil Court. The petitioner therefore claims to be aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 5. On hearing the learned Counsel, a perusal of the orders passed by the authorities would no doubt indicate that both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have properly appreciated the fact that insofar as the right claimed under a Will, the Revenue Authorities would not have the jurisdiction to determine the rights and it would be within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. However, with regard to the mutation entry effected in the name of the fourth respondent in M.R. No. 7 of 2003-04, the Assistant Commissioner had set aside the same and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for consideration of all aspects of the matter. On the order hand, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside that portion of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and has come to the conclusion that since M.R. No. 7 of 2003-04, was effected by the Tahsildar on securing the report from the Revenue Inspector and also following the procedure as contemplated under the Act and Rules, the mutation entry is to be retained and if the petitioner has any grievance, he would get the same adjudicated in a Civil Court, In the said circumstance, since the authorities have clearly understood the legal position that ultimately when right is to be decided by the Civil Court, the only question for consideration in that circumstance is as to whether the mode adapted by the Assistant Commissioner is the appropriate mode or as to whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified. 6. In this background, a perusal of the papers would indicate that the Assistant Commissioner while remitting the matter to the Tahsildar for consideration had taken note of the contention of the petitioner that he is the brother of deceased landowner viz., Gangadhar Menon. However, since no material was available, the Assistant Commissioner has taken note of the fact that firstly, the natural successor would be entitled to the property and only thereafter the person who claims right under the Will if the natural succession is shown to be interrupted. However, since no material was available, the Assistant Commissioner has taken note of the fact that firstly, the natural successor would be entitled to the property and only thereafter the person who claims right under the Will if the natural succession is shown to be interrupted. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has directed the Tahsildar to ascertain the status of the petitioner that he is the brother of late Gangadhar Menon and thereafter act accordingly. Such a direction would mean that at first, the Tahsildar has to ascertain as to whether the petitioner is the brother of late Gangadhar Menon and if that aspect is established before the Tahsildar, in such event, the petitioner would be entitled to the change of mutation entries in his name and the fourth respondent who is the stranger to the family, who relies on a Will dated 1-7-1999 would have to get the same established in an appropriate forum, in view of the opinion expressed by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of C.N. Nagendra Singh v. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore and Others 2002(6) Kar. L.J. 391 (FB): (2002)3 KCCR 1493 (FB). 7. In fact, the Full Bench has adverted to the very same aspect of the matter and has held the right in that regard. In that context, if the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is perused, by adapting the said course, if prima facie the petitioner is able to establish that he is the brother of late Gangadhar Menon, the onus would unnecessarily be shifted on him to approach the Civil Court to challenge the Will since in any event, the position of law is that the propounder of a will is required to prove the same before the Civil Court. 8. Therefore, considering all aspects of the matter and taking note of the fact that at the first instance, the Tahsildar will be considering the correctness of the claim of the petitioner and if he fails to establish the same, in any event, the fourth respondent would be entitled to change of mutation entries based on the Will and as the fourth respondent also cannot have grievance. I am of the view that the course adapted by the Assistant Commissioner is the more appropriate course in the present facts. I am of the view that the course adapted by the Assistant Commissioner is the more appropriate course in the present facts. That being so, the order dated 30-8-2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner which is impugned in this petition cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. The order dated 9-1-2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is restored and the Tahsildar is directed to act in accordance with the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner by the said order. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.