ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. Writ petition by warring persons with regard to the entries in the revenue records in respect of properties which the petitioner claims as a successor in interest to his father one Thopaiah whereas the respondent 3 claims interest through a Will executed by one Kalaiah, son of Thopaiah,
2. There is considerable confusion as to who is Thopaiah and as to who is Kalaiah and who claims under which Thopaiah or Kalaiah as it appears that the third respondent’s father’s name is also Kalaiah and petitioner’s father’s name is Thopaiah, while Kalaiah who is said to have executed a Will under which the respondent 3 claims was also son of Thopaiah.
3. The petitioner’s grievance is that under the impugned order, entries in the revenue records are now allowed to stand in the name of the respondent 3 claiming to be under a Will which if at all is required to be demonstrated before a Civil Court and not before the revenue authorities.
4. I have heard submissions of Sri Chandrashekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner who has urged that the revenue authorities could not have acted on the purported Will under which the respondent 3 had put forth his claim; that it was a matter to be decided by the Civil Court and therefore the order under which the entries were directed to be mutated in the name of respondent 3 calls for interference.
5. Sri Shivaprakash, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 3 while disputing this submission, submits that the Will executed by Kalaiah, son of Thopaiah is not in respect of the properties which the petitioner perhaps could have inherited from his father Thopaiah; that the executor of the Will Kalaiah, son of Thopaiah is not a person who is son of Thopaiah, father of the petitioner etc., that in fact, there were two Thopaiah’s; that the petitioner has only tried to take advantage of this ambiguity by creating records and the revenue authorities having noticed this position, have also directed appropriate criminal action against the petitioner and the matter does not call for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction at the instance of such a person.
6. Even a cursory glance is sufficient to realise the complications in this case which can never be resolved by the revenue authorities and likewise by this Court while sitting in supervisory jurisdiction over the orders passed by such revenue authorities.
7. Time and again it has been held that revenue entries are not determinative of the rights of the parties. The dispute in respect of the properties regarding the determination of the rights of the parties, if any, should be resolved by getting a determination from the Civil Court and not by changing of entries in the revenue records, which are not capable of determining disputed property rights nor are conclusive even with regard to the claim for possession as the presumption under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is not conclusive but is a rebuttable one. I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction in this case following a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Payappa Nemanna Huded v. Chamu Appayya Huded 1969 (2) Mys. L.J. 198.
8. I do not find any necessity to interfere with the order except to observe that it is for the parties to approach the Civil Court, have their disputes resolved before the Civil Court and seek for modification of the entries in the revenue records in accordance with the determination by the Civil Court.
9. Except for this observation, in all other aspects, this writ petition is dismissed.