Disposed

Smt Jaishree J Singh v. Smt Nagarathna D Holla

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2024WP/16505/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a probate petition for letters of administration bequeathed to a Society filed by its Secretary officially, the Secretary resigned and a new one was appointed. The High Court overturned the trial Court's refusal to allow substitution of the petitioner's name via an amendment application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; I.A.No.4 allowing substitution of petitioner's name permitted; trial Court directed to allow substitution and proceed.

Smt Jaishree J Singh Vs Smt Nagarathna D Holla — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31763 WP No. 16505 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 16505 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. JAISHREE J. SINGH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O. LATE. M.G. JAITILAK SINGH, SECRETARY, SRI. DEENADAYAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 31, SATHYA NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS, MODEL COLONY, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022

¶8

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

M.G. SULEKHA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O. LATE PRITHVIRAJ SINGH, R/AT NO. C-201, VAISHANAVI NAKSHATRA, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. NAGARATHNA D. HOLLA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O. V. DINAKA HOLLA, R/AT SRINIKETANA, 1^ST MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, NRUPATUNGA LAYOUT, TUMKUR - 572 102

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31763 WP No. 16505 of 2018

¶15

SMT. GAYATHRI B.S. HOLLA, W/O. S. BALASUBRAMANYA HOLLA, R/AT NO.857, 17 'G' MAIN ROAD, V BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010

¶16

SMT. RAJESHWARI R. ADIGA W/O. RAGHAVENDRA ADIGA, R/AT NO.22, 1^ST MAIN, RAMA MANDIRA ROAD, III STAGE, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE - 560 008

¶17

CHANDRASHEKAR RAO K. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO. 1175A, 2^ND CROSS, TRIVENI ROAD, KN LAYOUT, YESHWANTPURA, BANGALORE - 560 022

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. REVANTH P.N., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. DEEPA J., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2018 IN P & S.C.NO.156/2016 ON I.A.NO.4 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-16) AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE SAID ON I.A.NO.4 AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31763 WP No. 16505 of 2018

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by

¶26

XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.4 in P & SC No.156/2016, the petitioner therein has preferred this writ petition.

¶27

The petitioner is Secretary of one registered Society - Sri Deendayal Educational and Cultural Society. P & SC.No.156/2016 is filed on the ground that Late H.C.Satyanarayana Urala has bequeathed petition schedule property in favour of Sri. Deendayal Educational and Cultural Society. As letters of administration cannot be granted in the name of a Society and has to be granted to an individual, the Secretary of the Society in her official capacity has filed P & SC.No.156/2016.

¶28

The respondents herein have opposed the said petition and claimed that there was no Will as contended by the petitioner and has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31763 WP No. 16505 of 2018

¶30

In the meanwhile the Secretary of the Society resigned from the post of Secretary and a new Secretary came to be appointed and for that reason, the petitioner made an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C to substitute the name of Smt.Jaishree J Singh with the name of Smt. M.G.Sulekha. The said application has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.

¶31

The contention of the petitioner is that as the letters of administration has to be given to an individual and not in the name of the Society, they were constrained to file writ petition through the Secretary of the Society and the same has been filed in the official capacity of the Secretary and not in her individual capacity and as she resigned from the post of Secretary, they have sought to substitute the name of Smt.Jaishree J Singh with the name of Smt. M.G.Sulekha and the trial Court ought to have allowed the same, but has erred in not doing so.

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31763 WP No. 16505 of 2018

¶33

Per contra respondents justifies the order passed by the trial Court and further submits that petitioners are required to withdraw P & SC No.156/2016 and file a fresh P & SC case and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶34

It is seen from the impugned order that the trial Court has dismissed the application filed on the ground that an application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C can be made for amendment of the pleadings and not substituting the person and Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C can be made to change the name of the person, if the suit has been instituted in the name of wrong person or if a person improperly added/joined. With regard to Section 151 C.P.C, it is held that same cannot be availed to bring about the amendment to the suit or substitution of another person. On the said ground the application is dismissed.

¶35

Admittedly, the application is filed on the ground that ultimate beneficiary of the alleged Will, if proved would be the Society. But letters of administration

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31763 WP No. 16505 of 2018

¶37

cannot be issued in favour of society. Hence, the Secretary of the Society has filed P & SC.No.156/2016. The same is filed in official capacity of the Secretary and not in her individual capacity. Once she has resigned from the said post, the name of the new Secretary is required to be substituted and for that reason, the petitioner by invoking the enabling provisions has filed application. When the provisions are analysed in isolation, the trial Court may be correct in the conclusions that it has arrived at. However, when read together along with Section 151 C.P.C., I am of the opinion that under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court ought to have allowed the said application. Hence, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The impugned order dated 14.03.2018 in P&SC.No.156/2016 passed by XVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16) is hereby set aside.

¶40