[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Manjulamma N vs Nil on 18 March, 2026
-1-
MFA No. 2695 of 2025
RESERVED ON: 05.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 18.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2695 OF 2025 (ISA)
BETWEEN:
SMT MANJULAMMA N
W/O SRI ANANDAKUMAR A
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ,
798/1, SAROJAMMA COMPOUND,
NEAR COCONUT GARDEN,
T DASRAHALLI,
BANGALORE NORTH - 560 057.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.HIREMATH PRAVEENKUMAR APPAYYA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NIL
...RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 299 INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
14.02.2025 PASSED IN P & SC NO.15017/2023 ON THE FILE
OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL (TO SIT AT DEVANAHALLI), REJECTING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 276 OF INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT.
-2-
MFA No. 2695 of 2025
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED/ PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
The petitioner in Probate Application is before us in
this appeal filed under Section 299 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925, calling in question the Judgment
dated 14.02.2025 in P & SC No.15017/2023, passed by
the V Addl. District Judge, Bengaluru Rural, sitting at
Devanahalli (for short 'the Probate Court').
2. The Probate Court by the impugned Judgment,
rejected the application filed under Section 276 of the
Indian Succession Act.
3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings
before the Probate Court.
4. The brief factual matrix is as under:
The petitioner claims that one Late
Chikkaperumalappa had four sons namely Muniyappa,
Narayanappa, Narasimhaiah and Venkatappa. He died and
survived by his four sons. The second son Narayanappa
died way back in the year 1985 leaving behind his wife
Sarojamma. Smt.Sarojamma died on 09.03.2018. They
died issueless. The third son Narasimhaiah died and is
survived by his wife Lakshmamma and two children by
name Manjulamma - the petitioner and Krishnamurthy.
The other two children i.e., Muniyappa and Venkatappa,
are alive. Sarojamma, during her lifetime, executed a Will
in favour of the petitioner - Manjulamma bequeathing her
1/4th share in the family property.
5. It is further claimed by the petitioner that upon
death of Chikkaperumalappa, his fourth son Venkatappa
filed a suit in O.S.No.64/2007 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli seeking the relief of partition
and separate possession of his 1/4th share in respect of all
the joint family properties. The suit came to be decreed on
19.03.2014 granting the relief claimed in the suit. In the
said suit, Smt.Sarojamma was shown as defendant No.2
as she is representing the branch of Narayanappa, being
the sole legal representative upon his death.
6. The operative portion of the order passed in
O.S.No.64/2017 is as under:
"ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part.
The suit schedule properties are divided
into four fair and equal shares.
It is declared that the plaintiff,
defendants No.1 and 2 each entitled 1/4th
share in the suit schedule properties by metes
and bounds.
The defendants No.3 to 5 together
entitled 1/4th share in the suit schedule
properties by metes and bounds.
The claim of defendants No.6 and 7 is
hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw up preliminary decree accordingly."
7. The petitioner further claims that after the
preliminary decree, Sri.Venkatappa initiated Final Decree
Proceedings in No.11/2014. In the meanwhile,
Smt.Sarojamma during her lifetime, executed two Wills
dated 25.05.2015 and 02.11.2016. In the Will dated
25.05.2015 she has bequeathed her 1/4th share in the suit
schedule property in favour of both Manjulamma as well as
her brother. However, in the next Will dated 02.11.2016,
she has restricted it only in favour of Manjulamma i.e., the
petitioner. Smt.Sarojamma died on 09.03.2018.
8. The F.D.P filed in No.11/2014 was allowed by
order dated 18.06.2022, wherein upon demarcation of the
property by appointing the Commissioner, property in
Block No.3 has been allotted to the share of late
Smt.Sarojamma W/o Narayanappa. After the closure of
the FDP proceedings, allotting the share with boundaries
with respect of 1/4th share in favour of Sarojamma, the
petitioner instituted the petition in P & SC No.15017/2023
under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act for issuance of
Probate of registered Will dated 02.11.2016. Since none
were made as parties, the Probate Court, after institution
issued citation which was published in Hosa Digantha,
Kannada daily dated on 27.06.2023 calling upon the
interested parties to file their objections in respect of the
probate sought in the petition. However, none appeared to
claim any interest and participated in the proceedings.
9. The petitioner, in order to prove her case,
examined herself as PW.1 and two witnesses viz., PW.2,
the Scribe and PW.3, son of one of the attesting
witnesses, as the attesting witness has died, and produced
14 documents marked as Ex.P1 to P14.
10. Though all the requirements as envisaged for
issuance of Probate in terms of law have been complied as
contemplated under Section 276 and Section 63 of the
Indian Succession Act, the Probate Court proceeded to
hold that the other parties in Final Decree Proceedings
may come and challenge the order if the probate is issued
and on the said premise, rejected the petition, reserving a
liberty for the petitioner to appear before the FDP Court in
execution proceedings and produce the Will Deed which
enables the other parties of the said proceeding to contest
the matter. It is this judgment passed by the Probate
Court is called in question in this appeal.
11. Heard Sri.Hemanth Praveenkumar Appayya.,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused
the petition papers.
12. Since there are no respondents and also in view
of the fact that a citation was issued during the Probate
proceedings and none appeared and contested the matter,
we have proceeded to consider the case of the appellant
on merits.
13. It is trite law that once the requirements of
Section 276 and 63 of Indian Succession Act have been
complied by examining the Scribe, Witness and producing
relevant documents, nothing survives further to consider
in the absence of any contentions by any other party. The
Probate Court only on the premise that in FDP proceedings
the petitioner was not a party and she has also not filed
any application to come on record in the said proceeding
as legal representative of the deceased, further, since the
parties of FDP were not made as party to enable the Court
to dispose of the petition on merits and also on the
premise that if the probate is issued, the parties of FDP
may come and challenge the order, rejected the probate
petition. This finding of the Probate Court is erroneous and
against the well-settled proposition of law. What is
bequeathed in the Will is the 1/4th share of Sarojamma,
which is not in dispute. The share has already been
declared in favour of said Sarojamma during her lifetime in
the suit filed by Venkatappa and in the FDP proceedings,
the very same properties have been allotted to her share
with boundaries, being the 1/4th share of the properties. In
these circumstances, the Probate Court could not have
expanded scope of the Probate as once the valid
ingredients of Section 276 and Section 63 having been
complied, more so in the absence of any contentions
raised by any person consequent to publication of notice in
terms of the order passed by the Probate Court.
14. Furthermore, since there is no dispute between
the parties inter se with regard to 1/4th share, in view of
preliminary decree as well as disposal of Final Decree by
appointing Court Commissioner and demarcating the
properties, on this count also, the Probate Court erred in
holding that if the probate is granted, the parties in FDP
may come and challenge the order. In these
circumstances, the entire finding of the Probate Court is
erroneous.
15. The coordinate bench of this Court in MFA
No.4477/2023 in the case of SMT.RENUKA decided on
17.02.2025, in Paragraph No.15 has held as under:
"15. In the instant case, the
application under Section 276 of the
Indian Succession Act was duly filed by
the sole legatee. Notice was taken out
through paper publication. There were no
objections. The Will was duly proved. In
the circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the rejection of probate was wholly
unjustified."
16. In these circumstances, we hold that the order
of rejection to grant probate is wholly erroneous and
unjustified and required to be set-aside and accordingly, it
is set-aside and we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed.
- 10 -
II. The judgment dated 14.02.2025 in P &
SC No.15017/2023 passed by the V
Addl. District Judge, Bengaluru Rural,
sitting at Devanahalli is hereby set
aside. The probate application filed by
the petitioner is allowed.
III. The Probate Court shall issue Probate of
Will of Smt.Sarojamma dated
02.11.2016 in due form to the
appellant, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN
