Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1370 (KAR)

Shanthamma v. Commissioner

2023-12-07

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner No.1 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "a) A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.DA/W-165/KTR/88/22-23 dtd. 12/07/2022 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Banashankari Zone, Bengaluru, second respondent and produced as Annexure-A. b) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-F for change of khata in respect of the property bearing No.806, 16th Main, 19th Cross, Banashankari-II Stage, Bengaluru - 560 070, the subject property, by rejecting the objections filed by the third respondent. c) Pass such order, writ, or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case or as the situation demands in the interest of justice." 2. The first petitioner is the wife, second, third and fourth petitioners are the sons and the third respondent is the daughter of the late H A Veerabhadrappa, who was the absolute owner of the property bearing No.806, 16th Main, 19th Cross, Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru-560 070. The said H.A.Veerabhadrappa expired on 27/4/2022 leaving a Will, under which, a life interest was created in favour of petitioner No.1 and thereafter, the property was to devolve on petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.3. Petitioner No.1 on the basis of life interest created in her favour, made an application to the respondent - Corporation for issuance of khata in her name, which came to be rejected by respondent No.2 vide endorsement dtd. 12/7/2022 calling upon the petitioner to obtain a release deed from respondent No.3, since respondent No.3 had objected to the application filed by the petitioner. It is in that background, the petitioner No.1 initially filed the above petition before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. Petitioners No. 2 to 4 were added subsequently there being no conflict of interest between Petitioner No.1 on the one hand and Petitioners No. 2 to 4 on the other. 4. Sri K M Balasubramanya, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a life interest having been created in favour of petitioner No.1, the khata is required to be made out in the name of petitioner No.1 for her to better enjoy the property. 4. Sri K M Balasubramanya, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a life interest having been created in favour of petitioner No.1, the khata is required to be made out in the name of petitioner No.1 for her to better enjoy the property. Merely because, an objection has been filed by respondent No.3 - the daughter who gets a right in the property post the expiry of petitioner No.1 could not enable or entitle respondent No.2 to demand a release deed to be executed by respondent No.3 in favour of petitioner No.1. On this ground, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and certiorari be issued to quash the endorsement and mandamus be issued to respondent No.2 to issue a khata in favour of petitioner No.1. 5. Sri K S Mallikarjun Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 on appearance was directed to enquire and make a submission if there was a policy or a procedure available with the Corporation to deal with this kind of cases, where there is life interest created. On instructions, today he submits that there is no such policy or procedure and in all such circumstances, the applicable inheritance laws would be taken into consideration and wherever a person were to rely on a Will necessary letter of administration or the like would have to be produced. In this regard, he places his reliance on Sec. 149 of the BBMP Act, 2020 and submits that whenever, there are one or more claimants to the property or legal heirs, their names would be entered and the khata certificate issued. There is no provision for issuance of khatha certificate only on the basis of life interest, there is no separate entry which would be made. 6. Heard Sri K M Balasubramanya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K S Mallikarjun Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 though served has not entered appearance and service has been held sufficient. 7. The points that would arise for determination in the present matter are: (i) Whether a person claiming life interest under Will can seek for khata certificate to be issued exclusively in the name of such person or would the khata have to be issued in the name of all legal heirs? 7. The points that would arise for determination in the present matter are: (i) Whether a person claiming life interest under Will can seek for khata certificate to be issued exclusively in the name of such person or would the khata have to be issued in the name of all legal heirs? (ii) Could BBMP seek for execution of release deed from the other legal heirs in order to issue khata in the name of a person who claims life interest? (iii) What order? 8. I answer the above points as under: 9. ANSWER TO POINT NO.1: Whether a person claiming life interest under Will can seek for khata certificate to be issued exclusively in the name of such person or would the khata have to be issued in the name of all legal heirs? 9.1. A life interest created in favour of a person does not by itself confer title on the property, but confers possessory right to enjoy the usufructs of the property during the life time of such person. On the expiry of the person having a life interest either the directions of the Will or the inheritance laws would come into force requiring devolution of the property of such legal heirs of the deceased. 9.2. From the above, it would be clear that a person having life interest is not the owner of the property but has a possessory right to enjoy the property during the lifetime and is therefore, required to be treated differently than that of the other legal heirs. 9.3. The corporation has also considered this aspect in respect of leaseholders inasmuch as a lessee is issued a holders' katha, and the owners are issued owners' katha. 9.4. In my considered opinion a person holding life interest is similarly situated to that of a lessee, of course with no obligation to make payment of any rentals, and there being no tenure, a person having a life interest would continue to be entitled to enjoy the possessory rights during the lifetime of such person. 9.5. 9.4. In my considered opinion a person holding life interest is similarly situated to that of a lessee, of course with no obligation to make payment of any rentals, and there being no tenure, a person having a life interest would continue to be entitled to enjoy the possessory rights during the lifetime of such person. 9.5. Applying the very same principles to the present case, I am of the considered opinion that insofar as a person holding a life interest is concerned, the Corporation can always issue a holders katha in the name of such person holding a life interest, whereas a regular katha could be issued in favour of all the legal heirs, thus protecting the interest of all concerned. 9.6. Needless to say since the property is possessed of and enjoyed by the Petitioner, she will be responsible to make payment of necessary and applicable taxes as regards the property and that she would not be entitled to sell, deal with or transfer her life interest let alone the property or any portion thereof to any third party. Further needless to say Petitioners 2 to 4 and Respondent no.3 would also not be entitled to sell, deal with or transfer the property or any portion thereof to any third party during the life time of Petitioner No.1. 9.7. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that insofar as a person holding life interest is concerned, a holders' katha can be issued, insofar as legal heirs are concerned, regular joint katha could be issued. 10. ANSWER TO POINT NO.2: Could BBMP seek for execution of release deed from the other legal heirs in order to issue khata in the name of a person who claims life interest? 10.1. The petitioner had approached the Corporation for issuance of katha based on life interest, however, by the impugned order a demand was made by respondent No.2 for furnishing of a release deed on account of objection being raised by her daughter the respondent no.3 herein. 10.2. When a life interest has been created in favour of the petitioner unless contra is proved, merely on the basis of objection being filed by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 could not, in my considered opinion have sought for production of a release deed to make an entry of the name of the petitioner in the katha. 10.3. 10.2. When a life interest has been created in favour of the petitioner unless contra is proved, merely on the basis of objection being filed by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 could not, in my considered opinion have sought for production of a release deed to make an entry of the name of the petitioner in the katha. 10.3. Be that as it may, in view of the answer to point No.1 since bifurcation is made in the nature of katha to be issued, the question of release deed or otherwise would not arise. When a person claiming life interest satisfies the requirements thereof, a holders katha could be issued to such person. 10.4. Hence, I answer point No.2 holding that the demand for furnishing a release deed is not justifies and as such, Annexure-A would have to be quashed. 11. ANSWER TO POINT NO.3: What Order? 11.1. In view of my answers to point Nos. 1 and 2, the writ petition is allowed. 11.2.The endorsement bearing No.DA/W165/KTR/88/22-23 dtd. 12/07/2022 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Banashankari Zone, Bengaluru, second respondent and produced as Annexure-A is quashed. 11.3. A mandamus is issued to respondent No.2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-F and issue a holders' katha in favour of petitioner No.1 and regular katha in favour of petitioners No.2 and 4 and respondent No.3, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.