1 thought on “Bare Act “Bare Acts” refer to the original, unamended text of a legislation or statute. It’s the law as it was enacted by the legislature, without any subsequent changes or modifications.
Key Features:
– Original text
– Unamended
– As enacted by legislature
Importance:
– Provides a clear understanding of the legislative intent
– Serves as the foundation for interpreting and implementing the law
– Essential for legal research and analysis
Availability:
– Published by government agencies
– Available online through official websites
– Can be found in law libraries and bookstores
Srinivasan
Registration Of Will…
Registration Of Will Alone Does Not Confer Rights; Legatee Must Prove Validity: Karnataka High Court
The petitioner had contested the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which overturned the Assistant Commissioner’s decision, directing the Tahsildar to restore the name of the original property owner, Kamalamma, the petitioner’s mother, in the records.;
The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that a sibling seeking to claim exclusive ownership based on a Will in their favor cannot have their name entered in the land records until they have successfully proved and substantiated the validity of the Will.
The petitioner had contested the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which overturned the Assistant Commissioner’s decision, directing the Tahsildar to restore the name of the original property owner, Kamalamma, the petitioner’s mother, in the records.
A Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “Will either be registered or not registered does not create a right in favour of legatees. The legatee, who claims to be a beneficiary under the will, has to substantiate it and prove it. Unless respondent No.5 is non-suited in a partition suit, the petitioner could not have got his name mutated to the revenue records.”
Advocate Janardhana G appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate B.P Radha appeared for the Respondent.
The petitioner’s case relied on a ruling from the Supreme Court in the matter of Suraj Bhan and others vs. Financial Commissioner and others (2007), as well as a judgment from the division bench in W.A.No.4429/2011.
The Court referred to a Full Bench decision in the case of C.N. Nagendra Singh vs. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (2002), where it was determined that revenue courts are not authorized to assess or validate the authenticity of a Will. The Court emphasized that questions regarding the genuineness of a Will should be decided in the competent civil court, not in the mutation proceedings.
The Court further observed that even though the petitioner had filed a partition suit, this by itself did not provide grounds to keep his name in the records based on the alleged Will of his mother, Kamalamma. The matter concerning inheritance rights was considered significant, with the court noting that the name of the mother, Kamalamma, should remain in the revenue records until the rights of the parties were fully adjudicated in the ongoing partition suit.
The Court clarified that the mere registration of a Will, whether executed or not, does not automatically confer legal rights to the legatee.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the petition, deeming it without merit.
Cause Title: Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K V v. Government of Karnataka & Ors.,
1 thought on “Bare Act “Bare Acts” refer to the original, unamended text of a legislation or statute. It’s the law as it was enacted by the legislature, without any subsequent changes or modifications.
Key Features:
– Original text
– Unamended
– As enacted by legislature
Importance:
– Provides a clear understanding of the legislative intent
– Serves as the foundation for interpreting and implementing the law
– Essential for legal research and analysis
Availability:
– Published by government agencies
– Available online through official websites
– Can be found in law libraries and bookstores
Registration Of Will…
Registration Of Will Alone Does Not Confer Rights; Legatee Must Prove Validity: Karnataka High Court
The petitioner had contested the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which overturned the Assistant Commissioner’s decision, directing the Tahsildar to restore the name of the original property owner, Kamalamma, the petitioner’s mother, in the records.;
The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that a sibling seeking to claim exclusive ownership based on a Will in their favor cannot have their name entered in the land records until they have successfully proved and substantiated the validity of the Will.
The petitioner had contested the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which overturned the Assistant Commissioner’s decision, directing the Tahsildar to restore the name of the original property owner, Kamalamma, the petitioner’s mother, in the records.
A Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “Will either be registered or not registered does not create a right in favour of legatees. The legatee, who claims to be a beneficiary under the will, has to substantiate it and prove it. Unless respondent No.5 is non-suited in a partition suit, the petitioner could not have got his name mutated to the revenue records.”
Advocate Janardhana G appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate B.P Radha appeared for the Respondent.
The petitioner’s case relied on a ruling from the Supreme Court in the matter of Suraj Bhan and others vs. Financial Commissioner and others (2007), as well as a judgment from the division bench in W.A.No.4429/2011.
The Court referred to a Full Bench decision in the case of C.N. Nagendra Singh vs. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (2002), where it was determined that revenue courts are not authorized to assess or validate the authenticity of a Will. The Court emphasized that questions regarding the genuineness of a Will should be decided in the competent civil court, not in the mutation proceedings.
The Court further observed that even though the petitioner had filed a partition suit, this by itself did not provide grounds to keep his name in the records based on the alleged Will of his mother, Kamalamma. The matter concerning inheritance rights was considered significant, with the court noting that the name of the mother, Kamalamma, should remain in the revenue records until the rights of the parties were fully adjudicated in the ongoing partition suit.
The Court clarified that the mere registration of a Will, whether executed or not, does not automatically confer legal rights to the legatee.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the petition, deeming it without merit.
Cause Title: Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K V v. Government of Karnataka & Ors.,