[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Kota Padmanabh Shenoy vs Nil on 27 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 593 OF 2024 (ISA)
C/W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 552 OF 2024 (ISA)
IN MFA No.593 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. KOTA PADMANABH SHENOY
S/O LATE K.S.P. SHANBHOGUE
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT: 9, FIELD CREST ROAD,
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840, USA,
ALSO AT:
1385, 24TH MAIN
24TH CROSS, BSK 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 070
REP. BY GPA HOLDER
K. SANGEETHA SHENOY ALIAS
SANGEETHA PANDITH
2. K. SANGEETHA SHENOY
ALIAS SANGEETHA PANDITH
D/O LATE K.S.P. SHANBHOGUE
2
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT: 1385, 24TH MAIN
24TH CROSS, BSK 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 070
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR K, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M.V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NIL
...RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 299 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2023 PASSED IN P AND SC.
No.555/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, CCH.No.6 REJECTING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 220, 234, 278 AND PARA IX OF
THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.
IN MFA No.552 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1 . KOTA PADMANABH SHENOY
SON OF LATE K.S.P. SHANBHOGUE
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT: 9, FIELD CREST ROAD
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840, USA
ALSO AT:
1385, 24TH MAIN
3
24TH CROSS, BSK 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 070
REP. BY GPA HOLDER
K. SANGEETHA SHENOY ALIAS
SANGEETHA PANDITH
2 . K. SANGEETHA SHENOY
ALIAS SANGEETHA PANDITH
DAUGHTER OF
LATE K.S.P. SHANBHOGUE
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT: 1385, 24TH MAIN
24TH CROSS, BSK 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 070
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR K, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M.V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NIL
...RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 299 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT,
1925, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2023 PASSED IN P
AND SC. No.554/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH.No.6
REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 220, 234, 278
AND PARA IX OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.
4
THESE MFAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Miscellaneous First Appeals No.593/2024 and
552/2024 are preferred by the appellants assailing the
Orders dated 12.10.2023 passed by the XXIV Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City ('trial Court' for
short), in P and SC No.555/2022 and 554/2022,
respectively.
2. We have heard Shri. Arun Kumar K, learned
senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Sundara Raman M.V,
learned Advocate appearing for the appellants in both the
appeals.
3. The facts of the case are as follows:-
Appellants are the children of Shri. K.S.P. Shanbhogue
and Smt. K. Vinutha Shanbhogue and their sole surviving
legal heirs. The appellants father passed away on
02.12.2020 and their mother died on 08.05.2021. It is
contended that the schedule properties were left behind by
their parents.
The appellants filed P&SC No.554/2022 under Sections
220, 234, 278 and Part IX of the Indian Succession Act,
1925, for issue of Letters of Administration in favour of the
appellants with respect to the estate of Late Smt. K. Vinutha
Shanbhogue and P&SC No.555/2022 under Sections 220,
234, 278 and Part IX of the Indian Succession Act, with
regard to properties standing in the name of Late Shri.
K.S.P. Shanbhogue before the trial Court. In compliance
with the Order of the trial Court, the appellants published
notice in two local newspapers on 29.12.2022, calling upon
any person to file their objection to grant of Letters of
Administration in favour of the appellants. No objectors
appeared in spite of issuance of public notice. Thereafter, in
P&SC No.554/2022 appellant No.2 got examined as PW1
and got marked five documents as Exs.P1 to P5 and in P&SC
No.555/2022, appellant No.1 got examined as PW1 and got
marked five documents as Exs.P1 to P5.
The trial Court considered the issue whether the
appellants proved that they are entitled for Letters of
Administration in their favour with respect to the estate of
Smt. K. Vinutha Shanbhogue and Shri. K.S.P. Shanbhogue
in P&SC No.554/2022 and 555/2022, respectively. The Court
in both the cases held that the appellants herein had proved
that they are the legal heirs entitled to succeed to the estate
of their parents. However, it was found that they had not
produced any documents to establish that the schedule
properties for which the Letters of Administration were
sought stand in the name of the deceased. The trial Court
dismissed the petitions filed under Sections 220, 234, 278
and Part IX of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Aggrieved
by the said Orders, the appellants are in appeal before this
Court.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants contends that it is settled law that a
Testamentary Court, while granting probate or Letters of
Administration is not required to examine the title to the
properties for which Letters of Administration is sought.
Further, the grant of probate or Letters of Administration
does not recognise the deceased's title to the property.
Therefore, it is always open for a person to dispute title even
if probate or Letters of Administration are granted.
5. It is further contended that the trial Court
acknowledged that the appellants were Class I legal heirs
which was sufficient for grant of Letters of Administration.
However, the trial Court held that the appellants were
obliged to produce the documents to show that the
properties are standing in the name of the deceased and are
the very same properties left by the deceased. It is
contended that this finding is in contravention to the
provisions of the Indian Succession Act. The trial Court
relied on Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act to hold
that the appellants were under an obligation to provide the
full and true estimate of all the properties but have failed to
do so. However, it is contended that the said provision
requires only a true and full inventory of the deceased's
assets and liabilities must be provided to the Court within a
fixed period of time, after the grant of the Letters of
Administration. Therefore, the application of this provision
before grant of the Letters of Administration is premature, it
is contended.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants has relied on the following decisions:-
• A. Ramamurthy and Others in MFA
No.6652/2016 (ISA) by order dated
05.01.2017; and
• Smt. Severine D' Souza and Another v. Felix
Ambrose D'Souza reported in ILR 2003 KAR
7. We have considered the contentions advanced.
The application submitted by the appellants herein was for
Letters of Administration in respect of the property
belonging to their parents (Late Smt. K. Vinutha
Shanbhogue and Late Shri. K.S.P. Shanbhogue). A Full
Bench of this Court in Smt. Severine D'Souza's case
(supra), was called upon to consider the scope and effect of
Probate granted in respect of a Will. The Full Bench noticed
that the Apex Court in Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta
Devi reported in AIR 1954 SC 280, had held that the
question of title of the testator to the property is alien to
proceedings under the Indian Succession Act. However, a
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Maria Bai
and another v. Jayamma passed in
M.F.A.No.2353/1990 by Order dated 25.05.1999, had
held that when a contention is raised as against the Will and
the matter is converted to a Civil Suit, the Court gets
jurisdiction to determine the question of title to the property
and competency of a testator to execute the Will.
Considering the provisions of Sections 213 and 227 of the
Indian Succession Act as well as the decision of the Apex
Court in Rukmani Devy v. Narendra Lal Gupta reported
in AIR 1984 SC 1866 and of the Madras High Court in
Alagammal v. V. Radhammal reported in AIR 1992
Madras 136, the Full Bench of this Court came to the
conclusion that the Succession Act is a self-contained Code
and grant or refusal of probate has to be decided in
accordance to the same. It was held that grant of probate
establishes conclusively as to the appointment of the
executor and the valid execution of the Will. But no
question of title or of the existence of the property itself is to
be decided in the probate proceedings. It was therefore held
that the Division Bench decision in Maria Bai's case is a
judgment per incuriam and the same was over-ruled. The
reference was answered holding that the question of title or
even the existence of property is immaterial in probate
proceedings and all that is to be considered is whether the
Will was validly executed.
8. The said decision of the Full Bench was
considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in MFA
No.6652/2016 (ISA) by its judgment dated 05.01.2017.
Relying on the said judgment as well as the Apex Court
decision in Delhi Development Authority v. Mrs. Vijaya
C. Gurshaney and another reported in AIR 2003 SC
3669, the learned Single Judge held that the trial Court had
committed a serious error in insisting on production of title
deeds pertaining to the properties in question.
9. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
find that the notice of an application for Letters of
Administration had been duly taken out by the appellants in
the Probate Court. No objections had been received. The
Court has considered the documents produced and has
accepted the contention of the appellants that they are the
legal heirs of Late Smt. K. Vinutha Shanbhogue and Late
Shri. K.S.P. Shanbhogue, respectively, and that the Letters
of Administration could be granted to them. The sole reason
for the trial Court to reject the application was that the title
deeds of the property had not been produced by the
appellants.
10. We have considered the contentions advanced.
We have also perused the provisions of the Indian
Succession Act, especially the provisions of Part VIII and IX
of the Indian Succession Act. The Apex Court in Ishwardeo
Narain Singh's case (supra), has clearly held that the
question of title of the testator to the property bequeathed is
alien to proceedings under the Indian Succession Act.
Though a different view was taken in Maria Bai's case
(supra), a Full Bench of this Court considering the provisions
of the Indian Succession Act and the Apex Court's decisions
has come to a clear conclusion that the question of title is
not relevant in proceedings under the Indian Succession Act.
In the instant case, notice of the applications for Letters of
Administration had been duly taken out and no objectors
have appeared or objected to the grant of the Letters of
Administration. On the basis of the documents produced by
the appellants, the Court has come to the conclusion that
the appellants are the legal heirs entitled to succeed to the
estate of Smt K. Vinutha Shanbhogue and Shri. K.S.P.
Shanbhogue and that they would be entitled to Letters of
Administration.
11. In the above factual situation, we are of the
opinion that the rejection of the application filed for Letters
of Administration on the ground that the details regarding
the properties were not produced before the Court was
unsustainable.
12. Accordingly:-
(i) The Appeals are allowed.
(ii) The Order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the
XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru City in P and SC
No.555/2022 and 554/2022, is set aside.
(iii) The matters are remanded to the trial
Court for consideration of the application
for Letters of Administration without
insisting on proof of title of the testator
with regard to the property.
(iv) The application shall be decided within a
period of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
disposed of in both the appeals.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
