ORDER : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. The present writ petition is filed by the daughter of the testator, assailing the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by respondent No.1, whereby respondent No.2 has been directed to effect mutation in favour of respondent No.3 — the widow and second wife of the late B.S.Anandaiah Setty. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel representing the BBMP, and the learned counsel for private respondent No.3. 3. The dispute in the present case centers around the testamentary disposition made by late B.S. Anandaiah Setty, who is the father of the petitioner and the husband of respondent No.3. The impugned order is required to be tested in the light of the testamentary arrangements executed by the testator. This Court is of the considered view that paragraph No.15 of the Will is pivotal to the resolution of the dispute and accordingly deems it appropriate to extract the same, which reads as follows: "15. Now, I hereby bequeath the above said ground floor portion of property bearing No.22/19, (Old No.19), PID No.49-3-22/19, Appu Rao Road Cross, M.G.K Murthy Layout, Bangalore, measuring East to West: 45 feet and North to South: 32'6", to my elder daughter Smt.B.A.Rangalakshmi. I have given only rights of residence to my wife Smt.B.A.Rajeshwari in the said ground floor portion to reside during her life time. My wife will not be having any right to create any charge over the said property. After the death of me and my wife, my daughter Smt.B.A.Rangalakshmi became absolute owner of the said ground floor portion i.e., Scheduled 'A' property. And it is my wish that she (Smt.B.A.Rangalakshmi) has to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to my second daughter Smt.B.A.Vyjayanathi. Except my daughter Smt.B.A.Rangalakshmi, my wife and other children will not having any right over the schedule 'A' property." 4. Upon a careful reading of paragraph No.15 of the Will, it is evident that respondent No.3, the widow of the testator, has been granted a right of residence in the ground floor portion of the property. The petitioner, being the daughter of the testator, is entitled to succeed to the estate in respect of the said ground floor portion upon the demise of respondent No.3. 5. The petitioner, being the daughter of the testator, is entitled to succeed to the estate in respect of the said ground floor portion upon the demise of respondent No.3. 5. The records clearly indicate that both the petitioner and respondent No.3 acknowledge and accept the testamentary arrangements made by late B.S.Anandaiah Setty, as evidenced at Annexure-B. However, based on an application submitted by respondent No.3, respondent No.1 not only entertained the same by treating it as an appeal but also proceeded to pass an order directing mutation of the property in the name of respondent No.3. This Court finds it necessary to extract the relevant portion of the application submitted by respondent No.3, wherein she sought cancellation of the khatha issued in favour of the petitioner and restoration of the name of the testator/original owner. The contents of the said application are reproduced below: 6. A perusal of the application submitted by respondent No.3 makes it abundantly clear that she has unequivocally acknowledged the testamentary arrangements made by her late husband, B.S.Anandaiah Setty. In the said application, respondent No.3 admits that she has only a right of residence in the ground floor portion of the property, and further affirms that upon her demise, the said property would devolve upon the petitioner. 7. Despite this clear acknowledgment, respondent No.1, acting upon the said application, proceeded to cancel the khatha standing in the name of the petitioner and directed that the same be mutated in favour of respondent No.3. Such action is not only contrary to the terms set out in paragraph No.15 of the Will executed by the testator, but also inconsistent with the express admissions made by respondent No.3 in her application, evidenced at Annexure–D. Once respondent No.3 has admitted that she holds only a right of residence and that the property would devolve upon the petitioner after her lifetime, respondent No.1 was not justified in ordering mutation in favour of respondent No.3. 8. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, does not dispute the right of residence conferred upon respondent No.3, who is her stepmother. In fact, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 also concedes that her client has only a right of residence and that ownership of the property, as per the Will, vests with the petitioner after respondent No.3’s lifetime. 9. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, does not dispute the right of residence conferred upon respondent No.3, who is her stepmother. In fact, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 also concedes that her client has only a right of residence and that ownership of the property, as per the Will, vests with the petitioner after respondent No.3’s lifetime. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a reasonable apprehension that if the khatha stands in the name of respondent No.3, she may create third-party interests. In response, respondent No.3 harbours a similar apprehension that the petitioner may alienate the property if the khatha remains in her name. These mutual suspicions are speculative and unfounded. It appears that despite a clear and mutually accepted testamentary arrangement, respondent No.3, perhaps due to improper legal advice, has initiated proceedings that have now culminated in the present litigation. In light of the admitted facts and the clear terms of the Will, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. Respondent No.1 has failed to properly appreciate the nature of the application filed by respondent No.3 as evidenced at Annexure–D. The order passed by respondent No.1 directly contravenes the terms of the Will extracted earlier and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to restore the petitioner’s name to the khatha of the schedule property, strictly in accordance with the testamentary arrangements reflected in paragraph No.15 of the Will, evidenced at Annexure–B. (iii) Notwithstanding the restoration of the khatha in favour of the petitioner, the right of residence of respondent No.3 in the ground floor portion of the property, during her lifetime, shall remain protected. (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to carry out the restoration of khatha in favour of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.