Karnataka High Court
Suma Nedungadi vs Nil on 4 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
PROB. CP. NO.26 OF 2023
BETWEEN
1 . SUMA NEDUNGADI
WIDOW OF LATE
MR. A K RAVINDRANATH
NEDUNGADI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
AT FLAT NO.103, DELPHI-3,
PRESTIGE ACROPOLIS,
20 HOSUR ROAD,
BANGLAORE-560029
2 . ARUN NEDUNGADI
S/O LATE MR. A K RAVINDRANATH
NEDUNGADI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
AT FLAT NO.103, DELPHI-3,
PRESTIGE ACROPOLIS,
20 HOSUR ROAD,
BANGLAORE-560029
3 . AISHWARYA NEDUNGADI
D/O LATE MR. A K RAVINDRANATH
NEDUNGADI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
AT FLAT NO.103, DELPHI-3,
PRESTIGE ACROPOLIS,
2
20 HOSUR ROAD,
BANGLAORE-560029
4 . PADMINI P NEDUNGADI
WIDOW OF LATE A.K.P. NEDUNGADI ,
AGED ABOUT 88 YERS,
AT NO.604, ANSALA KRISHNA
1 APARTMENTS,
23, HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560030
...PETITIONERS
(BY MS. NIKITA GANESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SUNDARA RAMAN M V, ADVOCATE)
AND
NIL
...RESPONDENT
THIS PROB CP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 222, 276, 300
AND CHAPTER IV OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 READ
WITH RULE 5 OF THE RULES GOVERNING PROBATE AND
ADMINISTRATION MATTERS, 1964 PRAYING TO ALLOW FIRST
PETITIONER TO PROVE THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT DATED
19.08.2016 OF LATE A K RAVINDRANATH NEDUNGADI AT
ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.
THIS PROB. CP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 26.06.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
3
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 222, 276, 300 and
Chapter IV of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Rule 5
of the Rules Governing Probate and Administration Matters, 1964
praying this Court to allow first petitioner to prove the last Will
and Testament dated 19.08.2016 of late A K Ravindranath
Nedungadi and also grant probate in favour of petitioner No.1 in
respect of the said Will and grant such other relief as this Court
deems fit under the circumstances of the case.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking grant
of probate of the last Will and Testament dated 19.08.2016 of
late Ayani Kurussi Ravindranath Nedungadi alias A K
Ravindranath Nedungadi S/o late A K P Nedungadi. It is stated
that the testator professed Hindu religion and was residing in
Bengaluru city and the testator died on 29.01.2022. The
testator was a resident of and domiciled at Flat No.103, Delphi-
3, Prestige Acropolis, 20 Hosur Road, Bengaluru.
4
4. The testator is survived by his widow Mrs. Suma
Nedungadi i.e, petitioner No.1 and the executrix in terms of the
Will. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are his children and petitioner No.4
is the mother of the testator and the petitioners are the only
Class-I legal heirs of the testator.
5. The testator at the time of the execution of the Will
was in a sound and disposing state of mind. The testator was
not suffering from any infirmities affecting his mental ability and
power of judgment at the time of execution of the said Will. The
said Will was duly executed by the testator in the presence of
two attesting witnesses namely, Mr. V S Venkataraman and Ms.
Mimi Partha Sarathy and the affidavits of the said attesting
witnesses confirming the due execution of the Will also produced
along with this petition. The petitioners have stated in this
petition that the value of the estate of the testator is
Rs.2,87,59,000/- and the petitioners have not filed any other
petition before any other Courts of law for the same cause of
action.
5
6. It is contended that petitioner No.1 being the
executrix named in the Will is entitled to seek grant of probate of
the Will and administer the estate of the testator in terms
thereof. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 undertakes
to administer the estate of the testator and make a full and true
inventory of his assets and exhibit the same after the grant of
probate and also to render the true accounts of the estate after
having granted the probate.
7. In pursuance of this petition, this Court raised the
objection regarding petitioner No.4 since petitioner No.4 is not
the beneficiary under the Will. The counsel for the petitioners
would submit that petitioner No.4 is the mother of the testator
and being the Class-I heir, she has been arrayed as a party in
the petition even though her name is not mentioned in the Will
and the said submission is taken on record.
8. The petitioners have also sought for citation by way
of paper publication in English daily newspaper 'The Hindu',
Bengaluru, Palakkad, Pune editions and also in Kannada daily
newspaper 'Udayavani', Bengaluru edition and also filed an
6
application for dispensation of notice against the Deputy
Commissioner. As the learned counsel has undertaken to pay the
maximum Court Fee, the said application was allowed and also
permitted to take out the paper publication as sought.
Accordingly, paper publication in 'The Hindu' and 'Udayavani' as
sought are placed on record and the same is accepted and none
appears claiming any interest in respect of the Will. Hence, this
Court directed to list the matter before the Registrar
(Computers) on 05.08.2024 to record the evidence.
Accordingly, the petitioners examined two witnesses as PW1 and
PW2 and got marked the document of Will as Ex.P1 through PW1
and also signature of the testator as well as the signatures of
two attesting witnesses are marked as Ex.P1(a) to (c). So also
examined another attesting witness as PW2 and she identified
her signature at the Will which was already marked as Ex.P1(c)
and she also identifies the signature of the testator as well as
signature of another witness which was already marked as
Ex.P1(a) and (b). Petitioner No.1 is examined as PW3 wherein
she deposed about the Will executed by her husband and death
certification of her husband and she also deposed issuance of
7
citation in English daily newspaper 'The Hindu', Bengaluru edition
which is marked as Ex.P3 and citation is marked as Ex.P3(a) as
well as 'The Hindu' Kochi edition which is marked as Ex.P4 and
citation is marked as Ex.P4(a) and so also the Mumbai edition is
marked as Ex.P5 and citation is marked as Ex.P5(a) and the
citation issued in the Kannada daily newspaper 'Udayavani'
Bengaluru edition is marked as Ex.P6 and citation is marked as
Ex.P6(a).
9. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the
petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners brought to notice of
this Court marking of the original Will as Ex.P1 which is kept in
safe custody and the death certificate of testator which is
marked as Ex.P2 as well as examination of two witnesses as
PW1 and PW2 to prove the Will and prayed this Court to grant
the probate as sought.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and also on perusal of the material on record, the
point that would raise for consideration of this petition is:
8
1. Whether petitioner No.1 has made out a
ground to grant the probate as sought in
respect of the last Will and Testament dated
19.08.2016 of late Ayani Kurussi Ravindranath
Negungadi which is marked at Ex.P1?
2. What order?
Point No.1:
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that
the last Will and Testament dated 19.08.2016 was executed by
the testator late Ayani Kurussi Ravindranath Negungadi and the
same is marked as Ex.P1. The petitioners have also relied upon
the document of Ex.P2 - death certificate of the testator. Having
perused the last Will and Testament, it discloses that the
testator has mentioned that he has got movable and immovable
properties and the same are acquired out of his own funds and it
is also stated that in terms of the Will, all his movable and
immovable properties other than those specified in Clause 4 for
which he has made separate provision to his wife i.e., petitioner
No.1 and if she pre-deceases him, equally to his children and
9
details are given in Clauses 4 and 5 that four lockers which he
hold jointly with his wife and upon his death, his wife will have
the right to deal with the lockers and its contents in the manner
she deems fit and also a provision is made that if his wife pre-
deceased him, then all the movable and immovable properties
that his wife is entitled to under this Will shall stand bequeathed
to his children equally and details are also given. It is important
to note that in paragraph 7, he appointed his wife i.e., petitioner
No.1 to be the executor of his Will and if she pre-deceases him,
his son and if he pre-deceases him, his daughter. If all of them
pre-deceases him, his Auditor Mr. Vishnu Murthy of Vishnu Ram
and Company shall be the executor and if he pre-deceases him,
any of the partners of Vishnu Ram and Company shall be the
executor.
12. Having considered the contents of the Will, it is clear
that petitioner No.1 was appointed as the executor of the Will
and also provision is made to his children as well as to the
Auditor on account of death as mentioned. But this petition is
filed by the wife of the testator claiming that she is the executor.
10
Having considered the contents of the Will, it is clear that she
has been appointed as executor of the Will at Ex.P1 and
petitioner No.1 has sought for the relief of probate. In order
prove the Will, petitioner No.1 is examined as PW3 and got
marked the documents through PW3 i.e., Ex.P3 to P6 i.e., the
citations taken in three editions of 'The Hindu' newspapers that
is in Bengaluru, Kochi and Munbai editions since the properties
are situated in the respective places as well as the citation was
taken in 'Udayavani' newspaper, Bengaluru edition. It has to be
noted that none appears before the Court claiming any interest
in respect of probate as sought.
13. In order to prove the last Will also, examined two
witnesses as PW1 and PW2 who categorically deposed that in
their presence only, the testator has executed the Will which is
marked at Ex.P1 and both of them identifies the signature of the
testator and inter se identifies their signatures by the respective
witnesses. Hence, the Will at Ex.P1 has been proved by
examining the attesting witnesses. Thus, this Court is of the
11
opinion that petitioner No.1 is entitled for probate as sought in
the petition.
14. It has to be noted that petitioner No.1 is appointed
as executor of the Will to administer the estate of the testator in
terms of the Will and she undertakes to administer the estate of
the testator and make a full and true inventory of his assets and
exhibit the same after the grant of probate and also to render
the true accounts of the estate. Having taken note of the
averments made in paragraph 8 of the petition and considering
the material available on record and also proving of the fact of
very execution of the Will at Ex.P1, this Court is of the opinion
that petitioner No.1 is entitled for grant probate since she has
proved the same. Hence, I answer the said point as affirmative.
Point No.2
15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed and the probate is
granted in favour of petitioner No.1 as sought.
(ii) Petitioner No.1 shall file an affidavit of assets
and valuation within one month.
(iii) Petitioner No.1 shall duly administer the
property and credits of the deceased after
making a full and true inventory thereof and
exhibit the same in this Court within six
months from the date of issue of probate.
(iv) Petitioner No.1 shall render a true account of
the property and credits of the deceased to
this Court within one year from the date of
issuing probate to her.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
