Allowed

Mrs Cheluvamma v. Nil

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024MFA/3250/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the dismissal of a succession petition. Finding that trial court's dismissal was based on technical discrepancies regarding the name of the deceased and the date of a share certificate, which could be clarified via additional evidence, the High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside; the matter remanded for fresh consideration upon production of additional documents clarifying the name discrepancy and document dates.

Mrs Cheluvamma Vs Nil — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41794 MFA No. 3250 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3250 OF 2024 (ISA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. CHELUVAMMA WIFE OF LATE B.V. PADMANABHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.129, 1^ST MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPETE, BANGALORE SOUTH, CHAMARAJPETE BANGALORE-560018.

¶9

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

MR. B.P.MURULI KRISHNA SON OF LATE B.V.PADMANABHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8/4-3, 6^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, AZADANAGAR, CHAMARAJPETE, BANGALORE SOUTH, BENGALURU-560018. …APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. NEERAJ SASTRY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

…RESPONDENT

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 299 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 R/W SECTION 384 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2023 PASSED IN P AND S.C.NO.586/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41794 MFA No. 3250 of 2024

¶17

(CCH-42), REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTIONS 370, 371 AND 372 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on the main appeal as well as I.A.No.2/2024 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission of this Court to produce additional documents.

¶21

This appeal is filed against dismissal of P & S.C.No.586/2023. The Trial Court, particularly in Paragraph No.12, made an observation that B.V.Padmanabhaiah died on 10.09.1999 and his son by name Manjunath died on 03.01.2009. The Trial Court, taking note of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents produced by the petitioners comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are the only legal heirs of B.V. Padmanabhaiah. Having taken note of death of B.V. Padmanabhaiah on 10.09.1999 and also Ex.P2-share certificate issued on 17.06.2006, comes to the conclusion that Ex.P2 is issued subsequent to the death of B.V. Padmanabhaiah

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41794 MFA No. 3250 of 2024

¶23

and also found discrepancy in mentioning the name of B.V. Padmanabhaiah as ‘Padmanabhaiah B.P.’ and both of them are one and the same, no material is produced. Except the self-serving statement of petitioners, nothing is placed on record. Hence, the Trial Court dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present miscellaneous first appeal is filed.

¶24

The main contention of the appellants before this

¶25

Court is that the Trial Court committed an error in passing such an order only on technicalities. Learned counsel also would contend that, in order to clarify that there was no error on the part of the petitioners, additional documents are produced by filing an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court additional documents produced before this Court i.e., document dated 02.06.2006, wherein Sub-Division of equity share of United Breweries Limited is mentioned and consequent upon the same, Ex.P.2 was issued in 2006 i.e., on 17.06.2006 consequent upon document No.15 dated 02.06.2006 and these documents are necessary to establish the case of the appellants to clarify the doubts, which have been expressed by the Trial

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:41794 MFA No. 3250 of 2024

¶28

Court in dismissing the petition. The learned counsel relied upon document No.16, which is filed along with the application and this document is also with regard to clarifying the name of Padmanabhaiah B.V. and by mistake it was mentioned as Padmanabhaiah B.P. and if these two documents are considered, the decision of the Trial Court will be different.

¶29

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and also the documents which have been produced before this Court and also considering the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, particularly in paragraph No.12 i.e., consideration of document Ex.P.2 and when the appellants clarify that Ex.P.2 was issued consequent upon the additional document and also with regard to the clarification of mentioning of name as Padmanabhaiah B.V. and Padmanabhaiah B.P. and the sole reason given by the Trial Court with regard to the discrepancy in mentioning the name and when such being the case, it is appropriate to set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in P & SC No.586/2023 and to remand the matter for fresh consideration in view of the observations made by this Court. The appellants are given liberty to produce those two original documents

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:41794 MFA No. 3250 of 2024

¶31

¶32

before the Trial Court to clarify the same and the Trial Court is also given direction to consider the documents, if it is filed before the Court as additional documents and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The appellants are also given liberty to place any other additional evidence before the Trial

¶33

Court for consideration of the matter afresh.

¶34

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶36

ST,MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Mrs Cheluvamma v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Cheluvamma 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. K. N. Prakash Vs Sri. v. Krishna Murthy

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Usha Devi

Smt Sujatha H N Vs Varun v

Vysya Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Vs R. Nagaraja

Yaragatupalli Radha Kumar Reddy Vs M Rukminiamma

Mr Umashankar B Vs Mr S Arumugam