ORDER : The petitioners have called in question the legality and correctness of the order/endorsement dated 09.11.2017 passed by the second respondent at Annexure-D to the writ petitions. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that there was a family partition between the members of the joint family, whereby, the petitioners have been allotted among other items, an immovable property bearing Sy.Nos.20 and 21 situated at Kammanahalli Main Road, Bengaluru as their share under a registered deed of partition dividing the properties held and possessed by the Hindu Undivided Family. Under the said partition deed, each of the Hissedars have become absolute owners and have taken exclusive possession of the items allotted to hissedars. Therefore, the petition deed being a registered instrument of transfer of property rights, the petitioners approached the respondent authorities to transfer the khatha in respect of property No.20, Kammanahalli Main Road, Ward No.29, Kacharakanahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, fallen to their share under the said partition. It is on the objections filed by Sri. R. Jagadish respondent No.3, who is none other than the brother of petitioner No.1, respondent authorities issued endorsement directing the petitioners to submit representation with notarized ‘no objection certificate’ issued from Sri N.Ramamurthy and Smt. Leelamma @ Neelammaparents of petitioner No.1, pursuant to which, petitioner No.1 has caused representation through a registered post and the same has been returned unserved with postal endorsement ‘unserved’. Later on, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioners that parents of petitioner No.1 are now at abroad and as such obtaining ‘no objection certificate’ from them is nay impossible. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 authorities ought to have considered the request of the petitioners to transfer khatha in respect of the property in question in their names in terms of clauses of the registered partition deed dated 19.08.2011. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of KAMAL CHOPRA vs. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BENGALURU, reported in ILR 1988 KAR 2416. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the hands of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of KAMAL CHOPRA vs. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BENGALURU, reported in ILR 1988 KAR 2416. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the hands of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 4. It is on the objections filed by the brother of petitioner No.1 not to transfer khatha of the property in question based on clause No.9 of the registered partition deed, respondent No.1 authorities have directed the petitioners to furnish ‘no objection certificate’ from their parents. Said clause No.9 of the registered partition deed dated 19.08.2011 reads thus : “That the parties hereto have specifically agreed that, this deed of partition will come into effect only after the death of Sri. N. Ramamurthy, the First Party and Smt Leelamma @ Neelamma i.e., Sixth party herein. Till then the immovable properties will in the custody of the First Party herein and also till the death of Sri. N. Ramamurthy and Smt. Leelamma @ Neelamma the other parties i.e., Sri. Dhanraj and Sri. Jagadeesh do not have any right, title and interest over the immovable properties mentioned herein below.” 5. Indisputably, the property for which the khatha transfer was sought is the property mentioned in the said partition deed. In such circumstances, the authorities are justified in directing the petitioners to furnish ‘no objection certificate’ from Sri N.Ramamurthy First party and Smt.Leelamma @ Neelamma Sixth party to the partition deed/parents of petitioner No.1. It is true that it is not open for the Corporation to adjudicate the title of the property while exercising power under Section 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act in issuing khatha certificate. This Hon’ble Court in the case of Kamal Chopra(supra) in the context of khatha transfer sought by the purchasers/petitioners therein, held that the genesis of the title to the property is not open for adjudication. Corporation cannot reject the transfer of khatha on the ground that earlier transactions were not fully supported by valid title deeds to the property. This Hon’ble Court in the case of Kamal Chopra(supra) in the context of khatha transfer sought by the purchasers/petitioners therein, held that the genesis of the title to the property is not open for adjudication. Corporation cannot reject the transfer of khatha on the ground that earlier transactions were not fully supported by valid title deeds to the property. If at all, the Corporation is convinced that the property has vested in it and the property could not have been transferred by the original owners, the Corporation should work out its remedy in the property suit against all the previous vendors of the property and also against the petitioners, since title to the property has vested in the petitioners therein. In such circumstances, it is observed that if the parties make a proper application, the Corporation should decide that application on merits with reference to the law that is applicable to the application. 6. Respectfully following the said order, it can be held that the application filed by the petitioners herein has been considered by the respondent authorities and in view of the factual matrix of the case as narrated above, directed the petitioners to submit ‘no objection certificate’ from the parents of petitioner No.1 which would not be considered as arbitrary or capricious. It is hard to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners cannot obtain ‘no objection certificate’ for the reasons that the parents of petitioner No.1 are now staying abroad. In the circumstances, this Court do not find any valid grounds to entertain the writ petitions. 7. Accordingly, writ petitions stand dismissed.