JUDGMENT : This intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.30144/2008, wherein, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.7 was disposed of directing the respondent Nos.3 to 8 therein to take proper and effective steps to restore the name of Bharma in the revenue records relating to the subject land. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are, the respondent No.7 herein has filed writ petition assailing the order dated 03.04.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi and order dated 03.02.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi. It is averred that, the respondent No.7 had filed suit for declaration and possession in O.S.No.238/1993. The said suit was decreed on 29.02.2000. The said Judgment and decree was challenged by the father of the appellant No.1 in R.A.No.57/2001. The said regular appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back for fresh trial. The father of the appellant Sri. Ramappa Bhima Savadi has filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi, challenging the mutation entry in M.E.No.4308 which was entered pursuant to the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.238/1993. The Assistant Commissioner has set aside ME No.4308. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the 7th respondent has preferred revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi. The said revision petition was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the 7th respondent has filed Writ Petition No.30144/2008. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant, appearing for the appellant submits that, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in appreciating the fact that, mutation entry No.4308 was effected pursuant to the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.238/1998 and the said Judgment and decree was set aside by the appellate Court in R.A.Nos.57/2009 and 58/2009 and by virtue of said mutation 1/3rd share was allotted to Bharma Savadi, Rama Savadi and Siddavva Savadi. It is submitted that, in O.S.No.238/1993 the trial Court has given the finding that the Will in favour of the deceased Rama Bhimappa Savadi, the father of the appellant is not a valid Will and the said finding has attained finality. It is submitted that, in O.S.No.238/1993 the trial Court has given the finding that the Will in favour of the deceased Rama Bhimappa Savadi, the father of the appellant is not a valid Will and the said finding has attained finality. In view of the said finding the mutation entry No.4308 has become redundant and the same is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that, the appellant Nos.2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.4 in the writ petition and they were not parties to the writ petition, had no opportunity to defend the case and the respondent No.4 has expired on 09.10.2019 during the pendency of the writ petition and the order of the learned single Judge is against a dead person, hence, seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri. B.S. Kamate, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8 supports the impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.02.2022. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that, the subject property has fallen to the share of Bharma and respondent No.7 claiming that, the Bharma had intended that these properties should be succeeded by the 7th respondent, the father of the appellant herein and his family members are claiming that, Bharma had executed a Will in their favour. It is submitted that, both the cases filed by the 7th respondent as well as the father of the appellant have been negatived by the Civil Court and they cannot claim independent right, title or interest in the subject property, hence, the learned Single Judge has directed to restore the name of Bharma in the revenue records. It is submitted that the said finding of the learned single Judge is based on the material available on record, does not call for any interference. It is further submitted that, the appellant cannot contend that, the impugned order has been passed against a dead person as the respondent Nos.4 to 7 are being represented by the learned counsel before the learned Single Judge and he has effectively defended their rights and the present appellants are the legal heirs of those respondents. Learned AGA supports the impugned Judgment of the learned single Judge and seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. Learned AGA supports the impugned Judgment of the learned single Judge and seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent, learned AGA and perused the material on record. 6. The subject matter of the land in this appeal are land bearing Survey Nos.112/1-112/5, 113/1, 113/5, 607/1A/1 and 601/2D of Harugeri village, Raibag taluk, Belagavi district. It is not in dispute that, deceased Rama had four children namely (i) Avanna, (ii) Bhima, (iii) Siddappa and (iv) Bharma, who have subsequently partitioned the property and pursuant to the partition their names have been effected in revenue records. The appellant No.7 claimed that, he is adopted son of Avanna, respondent No.8 is the daughter of Siddappa and deceased Ramappa (appellants are the sons of Ramappa) is the son of Bhima. It is not in dispute that, the 4th son Bharma was a bachelor. The claim of the respondent No.7 is that, the Bharma being a bachelor intended that the land allotted to his share should be inherited by the 7th respondent, 8th respondent and the father of the appellant. It is claimed that, after the death of Bharma the respondent No.7, Srimanti and father of the appellant possessed the share of Bharma, however, the father of the appellant has created a Will. 7. It is not is dispute that The respondent No.7 has filed O.S.No.238/1993 seeking prayer of declaration and possession against the father of the appellants and others. The said suit was decreed on 20.09.2000 and pursuant to the said decree, the 7th respondent’s name was entered in the revenue records as per M.E.4308. 8. The Judgment and decree in O.S.No.238/1993 was challenged in R.A.No.57/2001. The said appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Immediately, thereafter the father of the appellant and his family members have challenged the mutation in M.E.4308 before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi and the said appeal was allowed on the ground that, the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.233/1998 was set aside by the appellate Court. The 7th respondent has challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner Belagavi in revision petition and the said revision petition was dismissed on 03.04.2008. 9. The father of the appellant and other family members have filed O.S.No.305/1993 and both the suits i.e. O.S.No.238/1993 and O.S.No.305/1993 were disposed off. The 7th respondent has challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner Belagavi in revision petition and the said revision petition was dismissed on 03.04.2008. 9. The father of the appellant and other family members have filed O.S.No.305/1993 and both the suits i.e. O.S.No.238/1993 and O.S.No.305/1993 were disposed off. O.S.No.238/1993 was decreed and O.S.No.305/1993 was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, in O.S.No.305/1993 the father of the appellant and his family members have filed R.A.Nos.57/2009 and 58/2009. The appellate Court has allowed R.A.No.57/2009 by setting aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.238/1993 and also dismissed R.A.No.58/2009 filed against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.305/1993. In effect, both the suits filed by the 7th respondent as well as the father of the appellant are dismissed claiming the respective right under the said suits. When things stood thus, both the suits filed by the parties are dismissed merely some passing reference made by the appellate Court in R.A.No.57/2009 connected with R.A.No.58/2009 that the testator Bharma Rama Savadi had executed the registered Will on 09.06.1989 as per Ex.D1 in favour of the defendant No.1 i.e. Rama Bhimappa Savadi i.e. the father of the appellant cannot be termed as a finding or finding on the right of the parties, hence said contention of the appellant is rejected. 10. The learned single Judge in paragraph No.9 has recorded a categorical finding that, both the cases filed by the 7th respondent as well as the father of the appellant and his family members have been negatived by the civil court and they cannot claim right, title or interest in the subject property. Hence, he has directed to restore back the name of Bharma in the revenue records. The learned Single Judge has further observed that, either of the parties may claim their respective share in the subject property if they succeed to the same in accordance with law. The said finding is based on the evidence on record, the findings are neither perverse nor capricious calling for interference in this appeal. Ultimately these proceeding are revenue proceedings and if entry made pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, shall be subject to the establishment of respective right by the parties over the share of Bharma. The said finding is based on the evidence on record, the findings are neither perverse nor capricious calling for interference in this appeal. Ultimately these proceeding are revenue proceedings and if entry made pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, shall be subject to the establishment of respective right by the parties over the share of Bharma. Hence, we are of the considered view that, there is no error in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge calling for interference. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the present appeal, calling for interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.