Partly allowed¶¶129

B N Kushalappa v. the Canara Bank

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2025RSA/943/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nominee versus legal heir; bank fixed deposit disbursement; Canara Bank Napokla Branch; proof of Will — attesting witnesses, Section 68 Indian Evidence Act 1872; Section 15(2)(b) Hindu Succession Act 1956; probate proceedings P&SC 2/1996 renumbered O.S.No.7/2006 pending; substantial questions of law framed 09.08.2016; scope of second appeal; nominee as trustee for real heir; intestate succession liberty reserved; costs imposed by first appellate court set aside; appeal allowed in part.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: the portion of the judgment passed by the District Judge, Madikeri, in R.A.Nos.3/2010 and 4/2010 imposing cost on the plaintiff is set aside; the rest of that judgment is maintained. ¶¶129

B N Kushalappa Vs the Canara Bank — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶129

Issue for consideration

Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in setting aside the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.5/1998 without taking into consideration Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act. +2 more

¶¶86

Court's answer

Substantial question of law (a) is answered in the Negative: the First Appellate Court, having considered the applicability of Section 15(2)(b) of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, rightly passed the impugned judgment, and no error is found in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court.

¶¶115

Ratio / Principle

Substantial question of law (b) does not arise for consideration, being pertaining to the validity of the Will, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.7/2006.

¶¶117

Key takeaways

It is not proper for this Court to go into the validity of the Will in view of the pendency of the probate proceedings before the I Additional District Judge, Madikeri; the withdrawal of the amount by defendant No.2 is subject to the outcome of the suit in O.S.No.7/2006 — the validity of the Will is thus left open to the appropriate forum.obiter¶¶110
Substantial question of law (c) does not arise for consideration, being pertaining to the validity of the Will, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.7/2006.ratio¶¶117

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the common judgment and decree dated 12.02.2013 of the District Judge, Madikeri, in R.A.Nos.3/2010 and 4/2010, whereby the appeals of the Canara Bank (defendant No.1) and the LRs of defendant No.2 were allowed, the trial court's decree dated 08.12.2009 in O.S.No.5/1998 was set aside and the plaintiff's suit for recovery of a bank deposit of deceased Smt. Boji Kalappa — disbursed by the Bank to defendant No.2, her nominee and brother, who also relied on a Will dated 03.05.1995 — was dismissed, with liberty reserved to the plaintiff to claim the amount from defendant No.2 per intestate succession if the Will failed. Before the High Court: (i) with the validity of the Will pending in O.S.No.7/2006 (arising out of probate proceedings P&SC No.2/1996), substantial question (a) on Section 15(2)(b), Hindu Succession Act was answered in the negative, the First Appellate Court having considered that provision and no error being found in its findings; (ii) substantial questions (b) and (c), touching the Will's validity, nomination and the nominee-as-trustee position, did not arise for consideration; (iii) the First Appellate Court erred in imposing costs on the plaintiff despite reserving recovery liberty. Appeal allowed in part: the cost-imposing portion of the lower appellate judgment set aside, the remainder maintained.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 943 OF 2013 (MON)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

B.N. KUSHALAPPA S/O. LATE NANJUNDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O. NAPOKLU VILLAGE AND POST MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201 (NOTE: APPELLANT NOT CLAIM THE SENIOR CITIZEN).

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE CANARA BANK NAPOKLA BRANCH BY ITS MANAGER, MADIKERI TQ, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.

¶15

SMT. M. SUSHEELA SOMANNA W/O. LATE M.M. SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶16

M.S. MANDANNA S/O. LATE M.M. SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

M.S. KARIAPPA S/O. LATE M.M. SOMANNA,

¶21

M.S. CHETHAN S/O. LATE M.M.SOMANNA,

¶22

ALL ARE R/AT BETHU VILLAGE, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1., SRI NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R3., R2, R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED)

¶25

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED:12.2.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.3/2010 AND R.A.NO.4/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, MADIKERI, ALLOWING THE APPEALS FILED AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 8.12.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.5/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & CJM, KODAGU, MADIKERI AND ETC,.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2013 passed in R.A.Nos.3/2010 and 4/2010 by the learned District Judge, Madikeri, and the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.5/1998 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madikeri.

¶33

For convenience, the parties are referred to,

¶34

based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.

¶35

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶36

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of the money. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the deceased Kalappa are brothers.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Kalappa died on 14.08.1991, and his wife, Smt. Boji Kalappa passed away on 14.05.1995. Defendant No.2 is the brother of Smt. Boji Kalappa. Smt. Boji Kalappa had deposited a certain amount in defendant No.1-Bank. She had shown defendant No.2 as her nominee. After her demise, defendant No.1-Bank disbursed the said amount in favour of defendant No.2, as he was a nominee. It is contended that the plaintiff, being the natural heir of Smt. Boji Kalappa, succeeded to her estate and though he submitted a representation to defendant No.1, not to disburse the amount in favour of anybody, defendant No.1, despite submitting a representation, disbursed the amount in favour of defendant No.2. Hence, the plaintiff requested defendant No.2 to pay the amount, but defendant No.2 refused to pay the amount. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery of the money. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit of the plaintiff.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Defendant No.1 filed a written statement

¶44

contending that Smt. Boji Kalappa had deposited a certain amount in defendant No.1-Bank, and defendant No.2 is shown as her nominee. After the demise of Smt. Boji Kalappa, the amount with accrued interest was disbursed in favour of defendant No.2, and it is contended that there was a valid payment, it is contended that defendant No.1 is unnecessarily arrayed as a party in the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1.

¶45

Defendant No.2 filed a written statement contending that the amount deposited by Smt. Boji Kalappa in the Bank was her personal money and he is entitled to it not only as a nominee, but also by succession as Smt. Boji Kalappa had executed a Will dated 03.05.1995. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.2.

¶46

The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, re-framed the following issues:

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

1. “Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the only heir and entitled to all the properties and assets left behind by Mrs. Boji Kalappa including fixed deposits with defendant No.1?

¶50

2. Whether defendant No.2 proves that late Smt. Boji Kalappa has appointed him as nominee and he is entitled to receive the suit property?

¶51

3. Whether defendant No.2 proves that, late Mrs. Boji Kalappa executed a ‘Will’ dated 3.5.1995, in his favour bequeathing all her assets and interests in his favour?

¶52

4. To what order or Decree?”

¶53

The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined

¶54

himself as PW-1, and marked 25 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-25. Conversely, defendant No.2 was examined as DW-5, the officials of defendant No.1 were examined as DW-1 to DW-3, also examined one witness as DW-4, and marked 15 documents as Exs.D-1 to D-15. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both the sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issues No.1 in the Affirmative, issues No.2 and 3 in the Negative and issue No.4 as per the final order. The Trial

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and judgment dated 08.12.2009.

¶59

Defendant No.1, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, filed an appeal in R.A.No.4/2010, and the LR’s of defendant No.2, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.3/2010. The First Appellate Court, clubbed both the appeals, and after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, framed the following points for determination:

¶60

1. "Whether the second defendant should have proved the Will in this suit?

¶61

2. Whether it is necessary to permit the second defendant to amend the written statement as prayed for in I.A.III filed in this appeal?

¶62

3. Whether the defendants have proved that the second defendant was a nominee in respect of the deposits referred to in the plaint and therefore payment made to him is a valid payment?

¶63

4. Whether interference is called for in the judgment and decree of the trial court?

¶64

5. What Order?"

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

The First Appellate Court, on re-assessing the

¶68

verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative, point No.3-does not arise, point No.4 in the Affirmative and point No.5 as per the final orders. The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.5/1998 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madikeri, was set aside, and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed, and it was also made clear that despite the dismissal of the suit, in the event the second defendant fails to establish a Will in the probate proceedings, it would be open to the plaintiff to claim the money which is the subject matter of this suit from the defendant No.2 in accordance with the law of the intestate succession.

¶69

The plaintiff, aggrieved by the common judgment and decree passed in R.A.Nos.3/2010 and 4/2010, filed this regular second appeal.

¶70

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

Heard the arguments of learned counsels for

¶74

the plaintiff, and the defendants.

¶75

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant No.2 has not proved a Will by examining the attesting witnesses as contemplated under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He further submits that the Will is the subject matter of P & SC No.2/1996. When defendant No.2 has failed to establish that the execution of a Will by Smt. Boji Kalappa is in favour of defendant No.2. Therefore, the question of disbursing the amount by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 does not arise. He also submits that defendant No.2, by playing a fraud on the plaintiff, got released the amount in his favour. Hence, he submits that the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit and the First Appellate Court have committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. He also submits that the officials of defendant No.1 have committed a serious error in disbursing the amount in

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

favour of defendant No.2. Hence, he pray on these grounds to allow the appeal.

¶80

Per contra , the learned counsels for defendant Nos.1 and 2 supported the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. Learned counsel for defendant No.2 submits that so far as the validity of the Will is concerned, the matter is pending before the learned District Judge, he further submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is premature. The First Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment, and he also submits that the First Appellate Court has reserved the liberty to the plaintiff to recover the said amount in the event defendant No.2 fails to establish a Will in the probate proceedings. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is premature, and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper, and it does not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds pray to dismiss the appeal.

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

This Court, vide order dated 09.08.2016,

¶85

framed the following substantial questions of law:

¶86

a) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in setting aside the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.5/1998, without taking into consideration Section 15 (2)(b) of Hindu Succession Act?

¶87

b) Whether the Lower Appellate Court has erred in law in not framing relevant points for consideration touching upon the validity of the Will, the right to inherit the properties left behind by Smt. Boji Kalappa and as regards proof of nomination pleaded by defendants 1 and 2 and not giving findings on the three relevant issues framed by the trial Court?

¶88

c) Whether the Lower Appellate Court has erred in law in holding that suit filed by the plaintiff in OS No.5 of 1998 is mis-conceived and the plaintiff should await the probate proceedings relating to Will in P and SC 2 of 1996 which was renumbered OS No.1 of 1997, in the light of established position of law that even a nominee is liable to refund the money received by him to the real heir and the nominee receives amount only as a trustee to the real heir?"

¶89

Reg. Substantial question of law (a):

¶90

It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff

¶91

and the deceased Kalappa are brothers. Kalappa died on 14.08.1991, leaving behind his wife, Smt. Boji Kalappa. Smt. Boji Kalappa, the wife of deceased Kalappa, died on

¶92

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

14.05.1995. During her lifetime, she had deposited a certain amount in defendant No.1-Bank making defendant No.2, her nominee. Defendant No.2, is brother of Smt. Boji Kalappa. After the demise of Smt. Boji Kalappa, the plaintiff succeeded to the said amount. The plaintiff submitted a representation to defendant No.1-Bank not to disburse the amount in favour of anybody. Despite submitting a representation, defendant No.1 disbursed the said amount in favour of defendant No.2. The plaintiff requested defendant No.2 to return the said amount to the plaintiff, but defendant No.2 refused to return the said amount. The plaintiff, to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1. He reiterated the plaint averments in his examination in chief and also produced 25 documents. During the course of cross-examination, it was suggested to PW-1 that probate proceedings are pending regarding the alleged Will executed by Smt. Boji Kalappa in favour of defendant No.2. PW.1 admitted the said fact.

¶95

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

Conversely, defendant No.1 examined its

¶98

officials as DW.1 to DW.3, and they deposed that Smt. Boji Kalappa deposited a certain amount in defendant No.1-Bank, and as per the records, defendant No.2 was the nominee. Defendant No.1, after verifying the documents, disbursed the amount with accrued interest in favour of defendant No.2. There is no negligence or irregularity on the part of defendant No.1 in disbursing the said amount. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of these witnesses in the course of cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence.

¶99

Defendant No.2 was examined as DW-5, he

¶100

deposed that the plaintiff, and the deceased Kalappa are brothers. Kalappa died on 14.08.1991, leaving behind his wife, Smt. Boji Kalappa. During her lifetime, she had deposited a certain amount in defendant No.1-Bank, showing defendant No.2 as her nominee, and she had executed a Will dated 03.05.1995 bequeathing the suit amount and the other properties.

¶101

14 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

The defendants produced 15 documents as Ex-D.5-Ex.D.15 in support of their defense. Insofar as the validity of a Will is concerned, the matter is pending before the First Additional District Judge, Madikeri, in the probate proceedings in P & SC No.2/1996, and the said probate proceedings was converted into an original suit and numbered as O.S.No.1/1997 (presently as O.S.No.7/2006) and defendant No.2 has produced the documents, i.e., a Will marked as Ex.D-10 executed on 03.05.1995 which discloses that Smt. Boji Kalappa executed a Will bequeathing the suit amount and other properties in favour of defendant No.2. The matter is pending before the jurisdictional court.

¶105

As in the present case, defendant No.2 is claiming to be the owner of the suit amount and other properties based on the Will at Ex.D-10 and as already observed above, the validity of the Will is pending before the appropriate forum.

¶106

15 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

It is not proper on the part of this court to go

¶110

into the validity of the Will in view of the pendency of the probate proceedings before the I Additional District Judge, Madikeri. Defendant No.1 has produced records that disclose that defendant No.2 was a nominee, and based on the Will, defendant No.2 withdraw the said amount from defendant No.1-Bank. Withdrawal of the amount by defendant No.2 shall be subject to the outcome of the suit in O.S.No.7/2006. The First Appellate Court, considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment and also made it very clear that, despite the dismissal of the suit, in the event, the second defendant fails to establish the Will in the probate proceedings, it would be open to the plaintiff to claim the money which is the subject matter of this suit from the second defendant in accordance with law of the intestate succession. The First Appellate Court considered the applicability of Section 15 (2) (b) of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and passed the impugned Judgment. I do not

¶111

16 -

¶112

NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

find any error in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court in the impugned Judgment.

¶115

In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question No.(a) in the Negative.

¶116

Reg. Substantial questions of law (b) and (c):

¶117

The substantial question Nos.(b) and (c) are pertaining to the validity of the Will, and as observed above, that is the subject matter in O.S.No.7/2006. In view of the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.7/2006, the substantial question Nos.(b) and (c) does not arise for consideration.

¶118

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in imposing the cost on the plaintiff. He further submits that when the First Appellate Court has reserved the liberty to the plaintiff to claim the money in accordance with law subject to the outcome of the probate proceedings, the

¶119

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

First Appellate Court could not have imposed the cost on the plaintiff. Hence, he prays to set aside the portion of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court imposing the cost.

¶122

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, that when the First Appellate Court reserved the liberty to the plaintiff to recover the same after the disposal of probate proceedings. The First Appellate Court could not have imposed a cost on the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court committed an error in imposing cost. The judgment and decree is liable to set aside only to the extent of imposing cost. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following,

¶123

ORDER

¶124

(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶125

(ii) The portion of the judgment passed by the District Judge, Madikeri, in R.A.No.3/2010

¶126

18 -

¶127

NC: 2025:KHC:18756 RSA No. 943 of 2013

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

and 4/2010, regarding imposing the cost on the plaintiff is set aside. The rest of the judgment passed by the District Judge, Madikeri, in R.A.Nos.3/2010 and 4/2010 is maintained.

¶130

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶131

DDU

¶132

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common judgment and decree dated 12.02.2013 in R.A.Nos.3/2010 and 4/2010 allowing both appeals, setting aside the trial court's decree in O.S.No.5/1998, dismissing the plaintiff's suit, and reserving liberty to the plaintiff to claim the amount from defendant No.2 in accordance with the law of intestate succession if the Will fails in the probate proceedings.¶¶32
District Judge, Madikeri · 12.02.2013
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff (now appellant) filed O.S.No.5/1998 against the defendants for recovery of money — the bank deposit of deceased Smt. Boji Kalappa disbursed by defendant No.1-Bank to defendant No.2 as her nominee.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Trial Court (Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madikeri) decreed the plaintiff's suit by judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009 in O.S.No.5/1998.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
On the evidence (PW-1 with Exs.P-1 to P-25; DW-1 to DW-5 with Exs.D-1 to D-15), the Trial Court answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and issues Nos.2 and 3 in the negative.¶¶54
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.1 filed R.A.No.4/2010 and the LRs of defendant No.2 filed R.A.No.3/2010 against the trial court's judgment and decree; the First Appellate Court clubbed both appeals.¶¶59
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court allowed both appeals, set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009 in O.S.No.5/1998, dismissed the plaintiff's suit, and reserved liberty to the plaintiff to claim the money from defendant No.2 in accordance with the law of intestate succession if the second defendant fails to establish the Will in the probate proceedings.¶¶68
Prior proceeding
Probate proceedings in P & SC No.2/1996 before the First Additional District Judge, Madikeri, concerning the Will dated 03.05.1995 (marked Ex.D-10), were converted into original suit O.S.No.1/1997, presently O.S.No.7/2006, and remain pending.¶¶104
Prior proceeding
This Court framed three substantial questions of law by order dated 09.08.2016.¶¶84

B N Kushalappa v. the Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B N Kushalappa v. the Canara Bank

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

Dr Nohsina Arnib Vs Mali Suresh

Smt Varadamma Vs Sri T M Chikkamallegowda

Sri Mahalingappa Vs B N Basavarajappa

Mr Umesh Poojary Vs Mr Ramananda Saliyan

Smt. Sathyavathi v Shetty Vs Karunakara Bangera

The President Vs G.v.Narayana Rao