Allowed

Sri a O Nagaraj v. Nil

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2021MFA/2316/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act against the dismissal of a petition for a letter of administration. The court observed that Section 218 applies only to intestate succession, not cases involving a Will. It remanded the matter to the trial court to decide under Sections 232 and 234 regarding administration of a Will where no executo

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the petition is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration under Sections 232 and 234 of the Indian Succession Act.

Sri a O Nagaraj Vs Nil — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

M.F.A.No.2316/2020 (ISA)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI A.O.NAGARAJ S/O LATE DODDAOBAIAH AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT T.AGARAHARA VILLAGE No.A-1, ‘SHREE’, 1^ST CROSS SULEBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT ...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI U.SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

NIL …RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 299 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2019 PASSED IN P AND SC NO.15/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 278 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.

¶14

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.11.2019 passed in P & SC No.15/2019 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘Act’ for short).

¶18

Succinctly stated the facts are that the appellant contending to be the legatee under the Will dated 19.08.1982 said to have been executed by his paternal uncle Sri. Munigangappa who expired on 20.05.2000, presented the petition under Section 278 of the Act seeking for issuance of letter of administration in his favour in respect of the said Will dated 19.08.1982. It was submitted that late Munigangappa’s father Appajappa had three sons namely, Munigangappa, Pillappa and Dodda Obaiah. At

¶19

¶20

present, all the sons of Appajappa are no more. During the life time of Munigangappa, he and his sons had divided their ancestral properties and were living separately. During his life time, Munigangappa had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.29/3 measuring 1 acre, situated at Shashimakanahalli village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District from his brother Pillappa through registered sale deed dated 09.10.1953 and the same has been bequeathed in favour of the appellant herein through the Will dated 19.08.1982. The said fact has come to the knowledge of the appellant during the third week of May, 2019 i.e., on 18.05.2019 when he was informed about the same by his elder brother A.O. Appajappa. The said Will was kept in the trunk of the deceased – Munigangappa which was mixed with old papers and the said fact was discovered by the appellant only on 18.05.2019. Thereafter, the appellant has contacted scribe of the Will, Sri. A. Gopalkrishna Rao and through him he

¶21

¶22

came to know about the attesting witness of the Will namely Sri. Venkataramanappa, whom he can contact for proving the Will. It was specifically contended that no executors are named in the said Will. Hence, the appellant has approached the Trial Court for obtaining the letter of administration of the said Will.

¶23

The appellant has examined himself as PW.1

¶24

and other two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3, got marked five documents as Exs.P1 to P5.

¶25

After enquiry, the Trial Court has formulated the following points for consideration:-

¶26

1) Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to issue letter of administration pertaining to registered Will dated 19.08.1982 in respect of schedule property in his name?

¶27

2) Whether the petition is maintainable?

¶28

3) What order?

¶29

¶30

On analyzing the material documents, the Trial Court has placed reliance on Section 218 of the Act and accordingly observed that when the deceased – Munigangappa has not died intestate pertaining to suit schedule property, the question of issue of letter of administration in favour of the appellant pertaining to the subject property does not arise at all. Hence, dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

¶31

Section 218 of the Act contemplates, to whom administration may be granted, where deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina or exempted person. In terms of the said Section, if the deceased has died intestate and was a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person, administration of his estate may be granted to any person who, according to the rules for the distribution of the estate applicable in the case of such

¶32

¶33

deceased, would be entitled to the whole or any part of such deceased’s estate.

¶34

The said provision would be applicable only in case when the deceased has died intestate and was a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina or exempted person. The Trial Court has observed that the deceased – Munigangappa has not died intestate. Then certainly Section 218 of the Act ought not to have been applied to the facts of the present case.

¶35

Section 232 of the Act deals with the grant of administration of universal or residuary legatees when the deceased has made a Will, but has not appointed an executor. Similarly, Section 234 of the Act deals with

¶36

the grant of administration where no executor, no residuary legatee, nor representative of such legatee is found. As such, if there was a Will executed by the deceased – Munigangappa, then it would not come within the ambit of Section 218 of the Act. It

¶37

¶38

would certainly fall either under Section 232 or 234 of the Act. This aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court while dismissing the petition. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Trial Court to re-examine the issue in the light of Sections 232 and 234 of the Act and to take a decision in accordance with law.

¶39

Hence, the following

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The appeal stands allowed. ii) The order dated 27.11.2019 passed in P & SC No.15/2019 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set aside.

¶42

iii) The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for re-consideration.

¶43

¶44

iv) The Trial Court shall re-consider the matter in the light of the observations made hereinabove and take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner. v) No order as to costs. vi) All pending I.As. stand disposed of.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

PMR

Sri a O Nagaraj v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a O Nagaraj v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B S Jayakumara Swamy Vs M/S Rajesh Exports Limited

Sree Rama Sai Constructions Vs The Commissioner

Sri D Ramadas Vs Krishnamurthy D

K B Chandrashekar Vs B v Kumaraiah

Smt. Swapna Reddy Vs Sri. K N Chandra Reddy

Sri. Nanne Jan M Vs Sri. Raju B M