Karnataka High Court
Mrs Sujatha Anil Kumar vs Nil on 28 January, 2025
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4067
MFA No. 1578 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1578 OF 2023 (ISA-)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. SUJATHA ANIL KUMAR
W/O SRI. ANIL KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT NO.291B,
VIDAYAPEETA MAIN ROAD,
OPP. CKA BUS STAND,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
2. SMT. K. P. BHAGEERATHY
W/O M. SEETHUMADHAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT "BHAGYASHREE",
Digitally signed by NEMMARA ROAD,
VEDAVATHI A K
Location: High TRIPALUR PUDIYANKAM,
Court of Karnataka PALLAKAD - 678 545.
REPRESENTED BY HER P.A.HOLDER,
MRS. SUJATHA ANIL KUMAR
3. MRS. VENI MENON
D/O LAE APPUKUTTA VARMA @ APPUKUTTACHAN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
BLOCK A20, GULAHAR GARDEN,
SURYANAGAR UPPAL,
K.V.RANGAREDDY MALLAPUR,
TELENGANA - 500 076.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4067
MFA No. 1578 of 2023
REPRESENTED BY HER P.A.HOLDER
MRS. SUJATHA ANIL KUMAR.
4. MRS. PRAVEENA RAGHAVAN
W/O M.P.RAGHAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT "MEERA SADAN",
KAILASHNAGAR,
KODUVAYUR,
PALLAKAD - 678 501.
REPRESENTED BY HER P.A.HOLDER
MRS. SUJATHA ANIL KUMAR,
5. MR. K.P. BALACHANDRAN
S/O LATE APPUKUTTA VARAMA @ APPUKUTTACHAN,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARSM
R/AT NO.116-B, G,
RAADIANT JASMINE APARTMENT, 26/2,
SHIVAANAHALLY, JAKKUR ROAD,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064,
6. MR. BALAMURALI K.P,
S/O LATE APPUKUTTA VARAMA @ APPUKUTTACHAN,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARSM
R/AT NO."APARNA", OPP.MARIAN COLLAGE,
KODUVAYUR, SHIVAANAHALLY,
JAKKUR ROAD,
PALAKKAD - 678 501.
REPRESENTED BY HER P. A. HOLDER-
MRS. SUJATHA ANIL KUMAR.
7. SMT. CHANDRAMOHINI V.N.
W/O LATE BHANU PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4067
MFA No. 1578 of 2023
8. SRI. JAYAPRAKASH V.N.
S/O LATE BHANU PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
9. SRI. RAVISHANKAR VARMA V.N.
S/O LATE BHANU PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
10. SMT. RADHIKA VARMA
D/O LATE BHANU PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
ABOVE NAMED 7 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT
"RADHIKA" KAILAS NAGAR,
KODUVAYUR, P.O. KODUVAYOOR,
PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678 501.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. K. NETHRAVATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NIL
...RESPONDENT
(NIL)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 384 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION
ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:11.08.2020 PASSED IN P
AND SC.NO.536/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. CCH-18,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF
THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:4067
MFA No. 1578 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 384 of
Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act')
for setting aside the order dated 11.08.2020 passed by the XIX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in P and SC
No.536/2019 for dismissing the application filed by the 1st
appellant herein.
2. Previously, the 1st appellant was the petitioner and
other respondents were the respondents before the trial court.
Subsequent to passing of the order dated 18.07.2024,
respondent Nos.1 to 5 were transposed as appellant Nos.2 to 6
and the legal hairs of one Bhanu Prakash, who had not
appeared before the trial court, have been made as appellant
Nos.7 to 10 in this appeal.
3. Notice issued to respondents is dispensed with since
the respondents are transposed as appellants.
4. The case of the petitioner before the trial court is that
the sister of the petitioner No.1 was Mrs. Sobhana
NC: 2025:KHC:4067
Setumadavan and the said Sobhana Setumadavan expired on
15.10.2018 at 1.00 a.m. due to cardiac arrest. Mr.
Setumadavan, who was the husband of Sobhana Setumadavan,
had predeceased her and died on 21.01.2017. Setumadavan
and Shobana Setumadavan had no issues. The mother of
Setumadavan also died long back. There is no sibling to
Setumadhavan and also no class I or class II heirs. The
deceased Setumadavan was working in BEML, Bengaluru and
retired long back. After the marriage, the deceased Shobana
and applicant Nos.1 to 6, who were the sisters of Shobana,
lived together, and after the death of her husband, Sobhana
was lived with her brother in Kerala. The deceased Shobana
was having movable assets i.e. fixed deposits and saving bank
accounts in post office as well as in other banks. She was also
having FD in Post Office under Senior Citizen Scheme. After the
death of Shobana, the petitioner No.1 requested the authorities
to release the amount. The authorities insisted the petitioner
to bring succession certificate. Hence, the petitioner
approached the District Judge by filing an petition under
Section 372 of the Act and the petition came to be dismissed.
Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:4067
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, perused the records.
6. It is not in dispute that Sobhana, said to be the sister
of the appellant Nos.1 to 6, had married to Setumadavan, who
predeceased Sobhana. Sobhana also died on 15.10.2018
leaving behind no legal heirs. The appellants are class-II heirs
of Sobhana. Setumadavan, the husband of Sobhana, was said
to be having one mother and she also died long back and there
is no sibling to the said Setumadavan. Therefore, the appellant
was the legal representative of Sobhana and public notice was
issued through paper publication and no one objected the
same, except appellant Nos.2 to 6 who appeared and not filed
any objection. Accordingly, the first appellant was examined as
P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. P.W.2 is also
examined. Respondent No.4 has been examined as R.W.1 and
Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 are marked. After hearing the arguments, the
petition was dismissed by the trial Court.
7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for appellants has produced two documents especially, the legal
heir certificate issued by Tahsildar, Chittoor pallakad and the
NC: 2025:KHC:4067
relationship certificate issued by the said Tahsildar, and
contended that these two documents were not produced before
the trial Court and if the said documents were produced before
the trial Court, it could have passed the order in favour of the
appellants.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, the trial Court has
dismissed the application on the ground that the appellants
were not able to produce the legal representative certificate to
show that they were the siblings of Sobhana. Also no
relationship certificate was produced to say that Sobhana is one
of the sisters of appellant No.1. The petitioner before the trial
Court also not produced any document to show that appellant
Nos.7 to 10 herein, who are the legal heirs of Bhanu Prakash,
the brother of deceased Shobhana, are related to the deceased
Sobhana.
9. It is seen from the records that the parties are from
Kerala and a gazette notification was issued on 15.03.2022
from Palakkad district, Kerala. These two documents show that
the appellants are the legal hairs of deceased Sobhana
Setumadavan and they are the legal hairs of the deceased
NC: 2025:KHC:4067
Sobhana. The husband of Sobhana also died and there is no
legal heirs to Setumadavan. Therefore, there is no reason for
this Court to refuse the appellants as the legal heirs of the
deceased Sobhana Setumadavan, as the respondents are
transposed themselves as appellants. Therefore, there is no
hurdle to pass the order and issue succession certificate in
favour of the appellants. Though the trial Court has dismissed
the application rightly stating that no relationship certificate or
legal heir certificate was produced, but the same are produced
before this Court and the same are taken on record.
10. In the light of the above, the appeal is allowed. The
order dated 11.08.2020 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in P and SC No.536/2019, is
hereby set aside. The petition filed by the appellants is allowed.
11. Office to issue probate and succession certificate in
favour of the appellants.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
CS
CT:SK
