Smt. N. K. Premakumari v. Shri. N. M. Siddu

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2025WP/23254/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, WP No. 23254 of 2022 (GM-CPC), S Vishwajith Shetty J., 04.12.2025 — Article 227 writ against rejection of impleading application (IA.No.3, Order I Rule 10(2)/Section 151 CPC) in probate proceedings P & SC No.30/2021 (estate of deceased Honnamma, unregistered Will dated 16.01.1992); petitioner alleged adopted daughter and Class-II heir asserting caveatable interest versus respondent claiming to be foster son; writ allowed, Trial Court order dated 17.09.2022 set aside, impleadment granted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 17.09.2022 passed on IA.No.3 in P & SC No.30/2021 by the Court of IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya set aside; the petitioner's prayer in IA.No.3 (impleadment) granted. ¶¶54 (para 14)

Smt. N. K. Premakumari Vs Shri. N. M. Siddu — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶54 (para 14)

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims to be the adopted daughter of deceased Honnamma and who together with the respondent would be a Class-II heir if Honnamma died intestate, had caveatable interest in the probate proceedings entitling her to impleadment, such that the Trial Court erred in rejecting IA.No.3. +1 more

¶¶39 (para 7)

Court's answer

Since, in the event Honnamma had died intestate, the petitioner and the respondent (her brother) are her Class-II heirs entitled to succeed to her estate, it cannot be said that the petitioner has absolutely no right to seek impleadment in the probate proceedings.

¶¶47 (para 11)

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner cannot be said to have failed to produce any prima facie material before the Trial Court in support of her contention that she was the adopted daughter of Kumbegowda and his wife Honnamma, having produced her SSLC marks card naming Kumbegowda as her father.

¶¶48 (para 12)

Key takeaways

The Trial Court failed to appreciate these aspects and erred in rejecting IA.No.3 filed on behalf of the petitioner; accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained and was set aside, and the prayer made in IA.No.3 was granted.ratio¶¶53 (para 13)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution (WP No. 23254 of 2022 (GM-CPC)), High Court of Karnataka — Impleadment in probate proceedings: Respondent, claiming to be the foster son of deceased Honnamma, initiated probate/letter of administration proceedings (P & SC No.30/2021, Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya) under her unregistered Will dated 16.01.1992. Petitioner, claiming to be the adopted daughter of Kumbegowda and Honnamma (who died issueless), sought impleadment as respondent through IA.No.3 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC; the Trial Court (IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya) rejected it by order dated 17.09.2022. The High Court held that, as the petitioner and the respondent are Class-II heirs of Honnamma who would inherit had she died intestate, the petitioner had caveatable interest and a right to seek impleadment, and that her SSLC marks card naming Kumbegowda as her father constituted prima facie material in support of her adoption claim. The Trial Court was held to have erred in rejecting IA.No.3; the impugned order was set aside and the impleadment prayer granted. Single judge: S Vishwajith Shetty; decided 04.12.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51069 WP No. 23254 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 23254 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. N.K. PREMAKUMARI D/ LATE KUMBEGOWDA AND W/O HUTCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/ NO.6, 7TH CROSS VIDYASHANKARA LAYOUT MYSURU - 571 112.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI PRADEEPKUMAR R.H, ADV., FOR SRI SHANMUKHAPPA, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SHRI N.M. SIDDU S/O LATE SHRI MADAIAH N.L AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O NETTAKALLU VILLAGE B.G. PURA BLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI G.K. VENKATAREDDY, ADV., FOR SRI PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADV.)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.09.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,MANDYA IN P AND SC NO.30/2021 ON IA NO.3 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER - I RULE-10(2) OF THE CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW IA NO.3 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:51069 WP No. 23254 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution with a prayer to set aside the order dated 17.09.2022 passed on IA.No.3 in P & SC

¶26

No.30/2021 by the Court of IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya.

¶27

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶28

Respondent herein has initiated probate proceedings in P & SC No.30/2021 before the Court of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, with a prayer to grant probate/letter of administration in respect of the estate of deceased Honnamma as per her last Will and Testament dated 16.01.1992.

¶29

In the said proceedings, petitioner herein had filed

¶30

IA.No.3 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC, with a prayer to implead him as the respondent to the proceedings.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:51069 WP No. 23254 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The said application was opposed by the respondent.

¶35

The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and the respondent are children of N.L.Madaiah who is the brother of Kumbegowda. Smt. Honnamma is the wife of the aforesaid Kumbegowda. Kumbegowda and Honnamma have died issueless. Petitioner and the respondent being the Class-II heirs of Honnamma are entitled to succeed to the estate of deceased Honnamma in the event she had died intestate. He submits that petitioner is the adopted daughter of the aforesaid Honnamma and after the death of Honnamma, revenue entries in respect of certain lands belonging to her were changed in the name of the petitioner which was questioned by the respondent herein. Respondent herein has filed a suit against the petitioner and others seeking declaration of his title in respect of the properties left behind by Honnamma. Respondent claims to be the foster son of Honnamma. However, he has not produced prima facie material in support of his claim, and on the other

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51069 WP No. 23254 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

hand, petitioner has produced certain material to show that she is the adopted daughter of Kumbegowda and Honnamma. The Trial Court has failed to consider that petitioner had some caveatable interest in the proceedings, and thereby has erred in rejecting the application.

¶40

Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that except the SSLC marks card of the petitioner in which the name of Kumbegowda is found as the father of the petitioner, there is no other prima facie document produced by the petitioner to show that she is the adopted daughter of Kumbegowda and Honnamma. The respondent had taken out paper publication in P & SC proceedings and no objections were received from any party. The proceedings is now at the stage of recording the evidence of the respondent herein, and therefore,

¶41

the Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶42

It is not in dispute that Kumbegowda and Honnamma have died issueless. Petitioners herein are the children of N.L.Madaiah - brother of Kumbegowda. According to the respondent, he is the foster son of Kumbegowda and

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51069 WP No. 23254 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Honnamma, and according to the petitioner, she is the adopted daughter of Kumbegowda and Honnamma.

¶46

The respondent who claims to be the foster son of Smt. Honnamma has initiated probate proceedings in P & SC.No.30/2021 alleging that Honnamma had executed a Will dated 16.01.1992 in his favour. Undisputedly, the said Will is an unregistered Will.

¶47

In the event Honnamma had died intestate, petitioner and the respondent who are her Class-II heirs are entitled to succeed to her estate, and therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner has absolutely no right to seek impleadment in the probate proceedings, wherein a claim is made by the respondent herein who is her brother, to grant letter of administration in his favour in respect of the estate of deceased Honnamma as per her last Will dated 16.01.1992.

¶48

In addition to the same, petitioner herein who claims to be the adopted daughter of Honnamma has produced the copy of her SSLC marks card in which her father's name is mentioned as Kumbegowda. Therefore, it cannot be said that

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51069 WP No. 23254 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

petitioner had failed to produce any prima facie material before

¶52

the Trial Court in support of her contention that she was the adopted daughter of Kumbegowda and his wife Honnamma.

¶53

The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in rejecting IA.No.3 filed on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:

¶54

Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.09.2022 passed on IA.No.3 in P & SC No.30/2021 by the Court of IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, is set aside. Consequently, the prayer made by the petitioner in IA.No.3 is granted.

¶55

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶56

Smt. N. K. Premakumari v. Shri. N. M. Siddu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. N. K. Premakumari v. Shri. N. M. Siddu

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

Chandrappa @ Chandrashekharappa Vs B Annappa

Mr. Allan Sunder Raj Vs Mrs. Miriam Meera Kumar

Sri N. Jayaram Vs Sri B R Ramaswamy Gowda

R Shivamurthy Vs Smt. K Radha

Sri C Manohar Vs Sri S Meganathan

Rajaiah Vs M B Devaraj