Karnataka High Court
Mrs Cheluvamma vs Nil on 16 October, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41794
MFA No. 3250 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3250 OF 2024 (ISA)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. CHELUVAMMA
WIFE OF LATE B.V. PADMANABHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.129,
1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPETE,
BANGALORE SOUTH, CHAMARAJPETE
BANGALORE-560018.
2. MR. B.P.MURULI KRISHNA
SON OF LATE B.V.PADMANABHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.8/4-3,
6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
AZADANAGAR, CHAMARAJPETE,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M BENGALURU-560018.
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. NEERAJ SASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NIL
...RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 299 OF THE INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 R/W SECTION 384 OF THE INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2023
PASSED IN P AND S.C.NO.586/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41794
MFA No. 3250 of 2024
(CCH-42), REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTIONS
370, 371 AND 372 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the
learned counsel for the appellants on the main appeal as well
as I.A.No.2/2024 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 read with
Section 151 of CPC seeking permission of this Court to produce
additional documents.
2. This appeal is filed against dismissal of P &
S.C.No.586/2023. The Trial Court, particularly in Paragraph
No.12, made an observation that B.V.Padmanabhaiah died on
10.09.1999 and his son by name Manjunath died on
03.01.2009. The Trial Court, taking note of the evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents produced by the petitioners
comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are the only legal
heirs of B.V. Padmanabhaiah. Having taken note of death of
B.V. Padmanabhaiah on 10.09.1999 and also Ex.P2-share
certificate issued on 17.06.2006, comes to the conclusion that
Ex.P2 is issued subsequent to the death of B.V. Padmanabhaiah
NC: 2024:KHC:41794
and also found discrepancy in mentioning the name of
B.V. Padmanabhaiah as 'Padmanabhaiah B.P.' and both of them
are one and the same, no material is produced. Except the
self-serving statement of petitioners, nothing is placed on
record. Hence, the Trial Court dismissed the petition. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the present miscellaneous first
appeal is filed.
3. The main contention of the appellants before this
Court is that the Trial Court committed an error in passing such
an order only on technicalities. Learned counsel also would
contend that, in order to clarify that there was no error on the
part of the petitioners, additional documents are produced by
filing an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 read with Section
151 of CPC. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this
Court additional documents produced before this Court i.e.,
document dated 02.06.2006, wherein Sub-Division of equity
share of United Breweries Limited is mentioned and consequent
upon the same, Ex.P.2 was issued in 2006 i.e., on 17.06.2006
consequent upon document No.15 dated 02.06.2006 and these
documents are necessary to establish the case of the appellants
to clarify the doubts, which have been expressed by the Trial
NC: 2024:KHC:41794
Court in dismissing the petition. The learned counsel relied
upon document No.16, which is filed along with the application
and this document is also with regard to clarifying the name of
Padmanabhaiah B.V. and by mistake it was mentioned as
Padmanabhaiah B.P. and if these two documents are
considered, the decision of the Trial Court will be different.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellants and also the documents which have
been produced before this Court and also considering the
reasons assigned by the Trial Court, particularly in paragraph
No.12 i.e., consideration of document Ex.P.2 and when the
appellants clarify that Ex.P.2 was issued consequent upon the
additional document and also with regard to the clarification of
mentioning of name as Padmanabhaiah B.V. and
Padmanabhaiah B.P. and the sole reason given by the Trial
Court with regard to the discrepancy in mentioning the name
and when such being the case, it is appropriate to set aside the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in P & SC
No.586/2023 and to remand the matter for fresh consideration
in view of the observations made by this Court. The appellants
are given liberty to produce those two original documents
NC: 2024:KHC:41794
before the Trial Court to clarify the same and the Trial Court is
also given direction to consider the documents, if it is filed
before the Court as additional documents and pass appropriate
order in accordance with law. The appellants are also given
liberty to place any other additional evidence before the Trial
Court for consideration of the matter afresh.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST,MD
