Doddaiah Vs Lakshmamma

LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE LAKKAIAH W/O NARASANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT. GOWDAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562162.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. CHAITANYA S.G. ADV.,)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.299 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN P & SC NO.6/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2020 PASSED ON THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 276 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT IN P & SC NO.6/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7229-DB M.F.A. No.1196/2024

¶19

VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE SAME & ETC.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

( PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN )

¶25

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in P & SC No.6/2018.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Smt.Doddakalamma, who, the appellant claims to be his adopted mother, had executed a Will on 06.05.1965 which was duly registered.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7229-DB M.F.A. No.1196/2024

¶29

It is submitted that Doddakalamma passed away on 20.07.1982 leaving behind the Will and the appellant was in peaceful possession of the properties bequeathed to him by the Will. It is submitted that the mutation was effected in the revenue records in his name, however, the respondent had challenged the mutation order passed in favour of the appellant and by order dated 27.08.2014, the Assistant Commissioner directed the Tahasildar to enter the name of the respondent as khatedar in respect of the properties shown in the schedule B to D of the petition filed by the appellant. The appellant had sought probate of the Will dated 06.05.1965 since he was the sole legatee in respect of the Will and was deemed executor of the Will. It is stated that the Probate Court found that the petitioner had not chosen to examine the attesting witness

¶30

to the Will, he had examined himself and stated that the attesting witness was alive as on 16.11.2018. Taking note of these facts, as also, on the ground that the application for probate was not filed by the executor of the Will and

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:7229-DB M.F.A. No.1196/2024

¶33

that the application had not been converted into a suit by

¶34

the petitioner, the application was dismissed.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner

¶36

submits that the grounds relied on by the Probate Court for dismissing the application were totally misconceived. It is submitted that being the sole legatee in respect of the registered Will, the appellant was the implied executor of the Will and, therefore, he could maintain the application for probate as well. Further, it is contended that the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, do not provide for conversion of the application into a suit at the instance of the petitioner and that the Court ought to have converted the application into a suit on objections having been raised to the same. It is further contended that the son of the scribe is now available and that the petitioner may be given a last opportunity to prove the Will in the manner known to law.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent would, on

¶38

the other hand, contend that even though the Court had

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7229-DB M.F.A. No.1196/2024

¶40

held that the application was not converted into a suit by the petitioner, the enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, had, in fact, been conducted by the Court. It is contended that it is on account of the fact that no evidence was adduced to prove the Will that the Probate Court had dismissed the application for probate. It is contended that even though the maintainability is stated as the reason for rejection of the application for probate, it is clear from a reading the judgment that the Will had not been proved in the manner known to law. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the probate could not have been granted by the Probate Court. It is further contended that the purpose for which the alleged son of the scribe is sought to be examined is also not clear from the pleadings and no useful purpose will be served by remanding the case to the Probate Court.

¶41

Having considered the contentions advanced,

¶42

we notice that it is the specific case of the appellant that

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7229-DB M.F.A. No.1196/2024

¶44

the registered Will had been executed by the Doddakalamma, who had passed away in the year 1982. It is further contended that the appellant is in possession of the property which is disputed by the respondent. In any view of the matter, the reasons stated by the Probate Court for dismissing the application for probate, according to us are not tenable. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that a last opportunity is liable to be given to the appellant to adduce evidence to prove the Will in respect of which he states to be the sole legatee and therefore, the implied executor. In the above view of the matter, we pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶47

ii. The order dated 30.01.2020 passed by VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in P & SC No.6/2018 shall stand set aside. The matter is remanded to the Probate Court for a consideration of the application for probate in accordance with law in view of

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:7229-DB M.F.A. No.1196/2024

¶50

the fact that the respondent has entered appearance and objected to the application.

¶51

iii. The application shall be converted to a suit and shall be appropriately dealt with.

¶52

iv. The parties shall appear before the probate Court on 10.03.2025 without awaiting any notice from the Probate Court. The Probate Court shall take appropriate steps to dispose of the matter at the earliest.

¶53

v. The parties shall co-operate to see that the matter is not prolonged.

¶54

vi. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶55

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶56

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶57

BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Doddaiah v. Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doddaiah v. Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ilyas Khan Vs the Competent Authority

Executive Engineer Vs Shivanna

M/S. Ktk Group Vs the Competent Authority and

Dr. Divya S. Nidhi Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.Rakshitha v Vs Union of India

Smt. K.S. Ramani Iyengar Vs the Executive Officer