Allowed

Mr Thomas Mathew v. Nil

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2023PROB.CP/15/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a probate petition for letters of administration in common form regarding the intestate estate of Mrs. Saramma Thomas. The court dispensed with surety bonds and inventory submissions while ordering specific asset accounting.

What did the court decide?

Grant of Letters of Administration in Common Form to petitioners; dispensation of security bond execution and filing; directive to submit inventory within six months.

Mr Thomas Mathew Vs Nil — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:27200 PROB.CP No. 15 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

PROBATE CIVIL PETITION NO.15 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR.THOMAS MATHEW S/O.LATE THOMAS P.MATHEW AND LATE SARAMMA THOMAS AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT APT D1, BLOCK 1 MEREDIAN APARTMENTS 1A CROSS, SR LAYOUT MURUGESHAPALYA BENGALURU - 560 017

¶10

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MR.THOMAS GEORGE S/O.LATE THOMAS P.MATHEW AND LATE SARAMMA THOMAS AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NOBLE VILLA KUMBANAD P.O., KOIPURAM KUMBANADU, THIRUVALLA PATHNAMTHITTA KERALA - 689 547

¶12

PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERS

¶13

(a) MRS.MERCY BABY

¶14

D/O.LATE THOMAS P.MATHEW AND LATE SARAMMA THOMAS AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:27200 PROB.CP No. 15 of 2023

¶17

(b) MRS.SMITHA MATHEW W/O.MR.SUMANTH NORONHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.A 603 DNR ATMOSPHERE APARTMENTS WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD RAMAGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU 560 066

¶18

MRS.MERCY BABY D/O.LATE THOMAS P.MATHEW AND LATE SARAMMA THOMAS AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT FLAT AT 301, 3^RD FLOOR GOLDEN GATE APARTMENTS 5^TH MAIN , 9^TH MAIN ROAD NRI LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU 560 016

¶19

4 MRS.ALICE KOSHY D/O.LATE THOMAS P.MATHEW AND LATE SARAMMA THOMAS AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT 2407, ROGERS KEY SAN ANTONIO TEXAS 782 58, USA

¶20

MRS.MARY GNANA SUNDARAM D/O.LATE THOMAS P.MATHEW AND LATE SARAMMA THOMAS AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT 5, IFIELD COURT BURSWOOD EAST TAMAKI, AUCKLAND, 2013 NEW ZEALAND

¶21

MR.ABRAHAM THOMAS S/O.LATE THOMAS P.MATHEW AND LATE SARAMMA THOMAS AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT 1449 CHAMBOARD LN HOUSTON, TX 77018, USA

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:27200 PROB.CP No. 15 of 2023

¶24

PETITIONER NOS.4 TO 6 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERS

¶25

a) MRS.MERCY BABY

¶26

D/O.ATE THOMAS P.MATHEW AND LATE SARAMMA THOMAS AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶27

b) MRS.SMITHA MATHEW W/O.MR.SUMANTH NORONHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶28

… PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI VIVEK ANAND ANTHONY BRITTO FOR SRI VIR ANTHONY BRITTO, ADVOCATES)

AND:

… RESPONDENT

THIS PROBATE CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER PART IX (SECTION 278 READ WITH SECTION 219) OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT OF 1925 PRAYING TO GRANT LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION IN RESPECT OF THE ESTATE OF MRS.SARAMMA THOMAS (DECEASED), IN COMMON FORM, IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS TO HAVE EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE UNION OF INDIA AS PER SECTION 278 READ WITH SECTION 219 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925.

¶34

THIS PROBATE CIVIL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Heard Sri Vivek Anand Anthony Britto, learned counsel for

¶37

petitioners.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:27200 PROB.CP No. 15 of 2023

¶40

This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking grant of letters of Administration in respect of the estate of Mrs.Saramma Thomas (deceased), in common form, in favour of the petitioners to have effect throughout the Union of India as per Section 278 read with Section 219 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

¶41

It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that the father of the petitioners namely, Mr.Thomas P.Mathew predeceased his wife Mrs.Saramma Thomas on 04.11.1993. This petition is for grant of letters of Administration arising on account of the death of Mrs.Saramma Thomas, who died intestate in Bengaluru on 15.02.2022. The said Mrs.Saramma Thomas was Christian by religion. Her death certificate is produced and annexed to this petition.

¶42

3.1 Learned counsel further contends that the deceased Mrs.Saramma Thomas was residing at G 603, Jagriti Renaissance, Ramagondanahalli, Whitefield, Bengaluru-560 066, which is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court and this was her fixed place of abode. The amount of assets which are likely to come to the hands of the petitioners upon the death of

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:27200 PROB.CP No. 15 of 2023

¶45

Mrs.Saramma Thomas (deceased) does not exceed in aggregate a sum of `5,62,59,277.40.

¶46

3.2 Learned counsel for petitioners undertakes to pay the maximum Court fee as contemplated under Article 6 of Schedule I of the Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. He has also filed an affidavit of assets of Late Saramma Thomas which are listed in Annexure-A. It is also contended that the value of the assets situated outside the State of Karnataka is more than Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, this Court is having jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

¶47

This Court vide order dated 20.04.2023 passed an order dispensing the notice to the Deputy Commissioner and allowed the application of the petitioners to take out citation by way of paper publication in the following newspapers:

¶48

i) 'The Hindu', English daily, Bengaluru edition;

¶49

ii) 'Udayavani', Kannada daily, Benglauru edition;

¶50

iii) ' The Financial Express' ; Chennai edition;

¶51

and the matter was posted thereafter for appearance of the parties, if any, on 21.06.2023 before this Court.

¶52

When the matter was listed before this Court on 21.06.2023, learned counsel for petitioners has filed a memo

¶53

Inserted Vide Court Order dated 24.08.2023

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:27200 PROB.CP No. 15 of 2023

¶56

enclosing the newspapers, which was published on 13.05.2023, wherein the citation was published calling upon the person interested, if any, to put-forth their objections, if any, before this Court opposing the grant of the letters of Administration.

¶57

It is seen that pursuant to the citation having been taken out by the learned counsel for petitioners in the aforesaid * three newspapers, there is none to oppose the petition for grant of letters of Administration. No one has appeared before this Court to raise objections or to oppose the grant of letters of Administration against the petitioners for movable and immovable properties pertaining to Mrs.Saramma Thomas. Therefore, in view of there being no objections raised or no claim made by any third party to the publication as ordered, as stated hereinabove, it can be assumed that there is no objection to the grant of letters of Administration with regard to the properties belonging to the deceased Mrs.Saramma Thomas.

¶58

It is also seen that the learned counsel has undertaken to pay the maximum Court fee as contemplated under Article 6 of Schedule I of the Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation

¶59

Corrected Vide Court Order dated 24.08.2023

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:27200 PROB.CP No. 15 of 2023

¶62

Act, 1958. This Court also by order dated 20.04.2023 had dispensed the notice to the Deputy Commissioner.

¶63

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, there being no objections raised with regard to grant of letters of Administration or with regard to any claim over the assets of Mrs.Saramma Thomas, there is no impediment to grant letters of Administration as sought for by the petitioners in this petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i) The petition is allowed ; ii) Registry is directed to issue letters of Administration in respect of the estate of Mrs.Saramma Thomas, in common form, in favour of the petitioners to have effect throughout the Union of India as per Section 278 read with Section 219 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925;

¶66

iii) Registry is directed to issue letters of Administration on payment of requisite Court fee.

¶67

iv) The filing of the security bond by the surety is dispensed;

¶68

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:27200 PROB.CP No. 15 of 2023

¶70

v) The execution of the security bond by the petitioners is also dispensed;

¶71

vi) The inventory shall be submitted by the petitioners within a period of six (06) months from the date of grant of letters of Administration;

¶72

vii) The final accounts shall be submitted by the petitioners within a period of twelve (12) months i.e. one year;

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

¶76

¶77

NC: 2023:KHC:27200 PROB.CP No. 15 of 2023

¶78

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶79

[MR THOMAS MATHEW AND OTHERS VS. NIL]

¶80

PSYJ

¶81

24.08.2023

¶82

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶83

ORDER ON I.A.NO.3/2023

¶84

Learned counsel for petitioners has filed an application in I.A.No.3/2023 under Section 152 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for correction of the order dated 03.08.2023.

¶85

It is brought to the notice of this Court that due to typographical error, the name of the newspaper i.e. 'The Financial Express', Chennai Edition has not been mentioned at para-4 of page No.5 of the order, so also, in the third line of para 6 at page No.6, instead of two newspapers, 'three newspapers' is required to be mentioned.

¶86

On perusal of the order passed by this Court on 21.06.2023 and the memorandum of facts, I.A.No.3/2023 filed for correction of the order is allowed . The name of the newspaper i.e. 'The Financial Express', Chennai Edition shall be incorporated in clause (iii) at para No.4 of page No.5 and in the third line of para-6 at page No.6, 'three newspapers' shall be mentioned instead of two newspapers.

¶87

[[

¶88

Sd/JUDGE

¶89

CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Mr Thomas Mathew v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Thomas Mathew 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 Nanjaiah Vs Sri M C Rajanna

S Umadevi Vs Nil

Narasimhaiah Vs Smt Basamma

Mr Jaideep Charles Prabhu Vs Nil

Sri Ramesh K Vs Karnataka State Law University

Smt. M.N Manjulamma Vs R.B Gangamma