ORDER : Petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 claim title to the immovable property in question through a common vendor, while respondent 3 claims title under a sale deed executed at a point in time prior to that of the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner. The Tahsildar having noticed the rival claims declined to effect change in the revenue records into the name of 3rd respondent which led to an appeal invoking sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'Act') before the Assistant Commissioner, who set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed recording the name of the 3rd respondent. That order when carried in a revision petition under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order by rejecting revision petition. Hence these petitions. 2. If regard is had to proviso to Section 135 of the Act, it is needless to state that the Revenue Authorities are bound by the judgment and decree of a Competent Civil Court, if parties seek declaration of title and possession of the immovable property, based upon which the entries in the revenue records must be recorded, therefore parties must stand relegated to the Civil Court. 3. Since petitioner and 3rd respondent claim that their names must be recorded in the revenue records, which is not permissible under Sections 127 and 128 of the Act, ends of justice would be met by directing Revenue Authorities to restore the name of the vendor in title of the parties, in other words, the entry in the revenue records shall read thus: "G. Muniswamy Reddy, subject to judgment and decree of the Civil Court in the view of dispute between Mr. Naved M. Hassan, s/o late S.M. Hassan and Smt. Radhamma, w/o Sri Krishnappa as directed in the order dated 16-7-2015 in W.P. Nos. 48477 and 48478 of 2013." The vendor G. Muniswamy Reddy will have no right, title or interest whatsoever over the immovable property much less right to alienate, encumber, or otherwise, dispose of the property by reason of the entry in the revenue records. 4. 48477 and 48478 of 2013." The vendor G. Muniswamy Reddy will have no right, title or interest whatsoever over the immovable property much less right to alienate, encumber, or otherwise, dispose of the property by reason of the entry in the revenue records. 4. In the result, petitions are ordered in the aforesaid terms, and the orders of the Revenue Authorities, impugned shall be subject to the result of the judgment and decree in the suit instituted by the parties over declaration of their title and possession in accordance with the proviso to Section 135 of the Act.