Karnataka High Court
Sri Veeranna T vs Nil on 8 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 28.11.2025
Pronounced on : 08.01.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.21830 OF 2025 (GM - CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI VEERANNA T.,
S/O LATE UJJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: THOTAGERE VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NIL
... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE
2
THE SUO-MOTO ORDER DATED 18.06.2025 PASSED IN P AND SC
NO. 53/2024 BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE,
VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 28.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order
dated 18-06-2025 passed by the I Additional District Judge,
Bangalore Rural District in P & SC No.53 of 2024.
2. Heard Sri K. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. The petitioner files a petition under Sections 222, 264
r/w 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act' for short) seeking probate of the registered Will
executed by deceased Basamma in favour of the petitioner. It is the
3
averment in the petition that Basamma, W/o late Chennaiah was
the sole and absolute owner in possession of land bearing
Sy.No.80, new No.80/3 measuring 2 acres, out of 5 acres and 20
guntas in Thotagere Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk which was purchased by her. The history would be,
Basamma married Chennaiah, they had no issues. Petitioner herein
is said to be the son of younger sister of Basamma by name
Munigangamma and the said Basamma was being taken care of by
the petitioner. Basamma during her life time had executed a
registered Will on 18-11-1991 bequeathing afore-mentioned
property in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner was not
aware of the same. It is said that he comes to know of the Will
while searching old documents in the house and comes across the
original Will executed by the deceased Basamma.
3.2. The petitioner in terms of the Will, as a legatee to act
under the Will, sought probate of the same to enable him to have
the RTC of the said property changed into his name. Therefore, he
approaches the revenue authorities on 01-06-2024 seeking change
of entry in his name on the strength of the Will. But, the respective
4
Departments which he is said to have approached sought orders of
the Court by granting probate of the Will. Therefore, he approached
the concerned Court. The concerned Court, in terms of its order
dated 18-06-2025, directed the petitioner to take steps to serve the
legal heirs, if any of Basamma in terms of Section 15 of the Hindu
Succession Act and posted the matter to a particular date. Feeling
aggrieved by the said order of the concerned Court which directs
issuance of notice to the legal heirs, the petitioner is before this
Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that the petitioner sought probate of the registered Will.
The testatrix of the Will died on 28-09-1999 and therefore, there is
no necessity of even issuance of notice to the legal heirs or
supposed legal heirs of the maternal aunt of the petitioner. He
would submit that the petition be allowed and a direction be issued
to probate the Will.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused
the material on record.
5
6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. What drives
the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is the order dated
18-06-2025. The order reads as follows:
"This petition is preferred seeking the relief of grant of
probate in respect of the Will dated 18.11.1991 said to have
been executed by Smt.Basamma the maternal aunt of the
petitioner.
It is the say of petitioner that Basamma though married
had no children in her wed-lock. That the husband of
Basamma is pre-deceased.
No document is adduced to show that whether the heirs
of Basamma as per Sec.15 of Hindu Succession act are alive or
not. Therefore, the following order.
ORDER
That for the aforementioned reasons it is hereby ordered that the petitioner herein shall take steps as against heirs, as per Sec.15 of Hindu Succession Act, if any, of Basamma. For same by 16.07.2025."
The history of the said order qua the order sheet is also necessary to be noticed. The petitioner had sought probate of the Will. Certain proceedings have taken place throughout, before the trial Court.
The orders passed on 22-01-2025 till the impugned order are germane to be noticed. They read as follows:
"22-01-2025 Counsel for the petitioner files application u/o 7 Rule 14 (A) for production 6 of Original documents. Application allowed and the petitioner is permitted to produce the documents as sought in the application.
Petitioner is present and examined as PW.1. Ex.P.1 to 6 are marked.
For further evidence.
Call on 19.02.2025.
19-02-2025 Counsel for the petitioner is present and prays time.
For further evidence.
Call on 04-03-2025.
04-03-2025 Counsel for the petitioner is present and prays time.
For further evidence.
Call on 12-03-2025.
12-03-2025 Counsel for the petitioner is present and prays time.
For further evidence.
Call on 14.03.2025.
14-03-2025 Counsel for the petitioner is present and files application U/o 7 Rule 14(A) of CPC to produce the additional documents. Application allowed and the petitioner is permitted to produce the documents as sought in the application.
One Vijayalakshmi, who is the wife of the attesting witness by L.N. Narayanappa is present before the Court and she is examined as PW-2.7
Ex.P1(a), Ex.P7, Ex.P7(a) to Ex.P10 are marked.
For arguments.
Call on 26-03-2025.
26-03-2025 Counsel for the petitioner is present and prays time.
For arguments.
Call on 04.04.2025.
04-04-2025 Counsel for the petitioner is present and prays time.
For arguments.
Call on 08-04-2025.
08-04-2025 Counsel for the petitioner is present and files applications U/o.18 rule 17 and Sec.151 of CPC to recall the order dated 14-03-2025 and permit the petitioner to lead further examination in chief to produce the additional documents.
Further counsel for the petitioner files application U/o.7 rule 14 for production of additional document.
Perused the said applications and allowed.
The petitioner is hereby permitted to lead further examination in chief and produce the additional documents as sought in the application.8
Petitioner is present and further examined in chief. Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 are marked.
Counsel for the petitioner is present and prays time.
For further evidence for the
petitioner.
Call on 11-06-2025.
11-06-2025 Petitioner and the counsel for the
petitioner being absent.
Post the matter for further evidence if any as last chance.
By: 18.06.2025."
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to the case at hand and the concerned Court refers to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act erroneously. The submission is that, a person belonging to Hindu family dying intestate only would come within the ambit of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. Here, Basamma had not died intestate, but she had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner.
97. The submission of the learned counsel qua Section 15, though would in the first blush merit acceptance, but the contentions are contrary to law. There is no averment in the petition or in oath evidence adduced regarding the presence of other legal heirs and the further averment is that pursuant to public notice published in Kannadaprabha newspaper, no party has appeared before the trial Court to contest the Will. But, a notice under Section 283 of the Act is necessary to be issued in a case, where after leading evidence if it comes to the knowledge of the Court that husband of Basamma had pre-deceased Basamma.
Therefore, notice under Section 283 of the Act was imperative.
8. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of JAGJEEVAN PRASAD v. PARVATI BAI1, considers this issue and holds as follows:
".... .... ....
23. Section 283(1)(c) of the Act contemplates that it was necessary for the trial Court seized with proceedings in P & SC No. 1/2001 to issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased Manohar Prasad before the grant of probate in favour of the appellant. In fact, the 1 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5751 10 said proceedings in P. & SC No. 1/2001 were governed by the "Rules governing Probate and Administration Matters, 1964 (for short 'the Rules'). Rule 5(1)(iv) of the Rules mandate that it was necessary that notice/special citation of the proceedings is served by the appellant on all persons of the same degree of relation or nearer degree than the appellant as per the procedure prescribed under the said Rule. A conjoint reading of Section 283(1)(c) of the Act r/w Rule 5(1)(iv) of the Rules clearly indicate that in the facts of the instant case, it was incumbent upon the appellant as well as the trial Court to issue notice/special citation of the proceedings upon respondents herein and other relatives who are related to Manohar Prasad in same degree or a nearer degree as the appellant. The Apex Court in the case of Manju Puri v. Rajiv Singh Hanspal, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 197, held as under:
"36 -- We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Single Judge erred in not issuing any citation to Smt. BeenaMehra in the probate proceedings and without any verification of genuineness of no objection certificates mechanically granted probate which was unsustainable. If it is accepted that in probate proceedings persons who have been disinherited in the Will on mere no objection certificates by them without either being called by probate Court to appear or certify their no objections or to file any pleading will lead to unsatisfactory result and may cause prejudice to persons who were not aware of the proceedings and are yet claimed to have submitted no objections. We thus conclude that even though learned Single Judge had discretion to issue citation or not but in the facts of the present case a citation ought to have been issued in exercise of discretion conferred under Section 283 of the Succession Act and the probate granted without issuance of such citation in the facts of the present case deserves to be revoked and learned Single Judge and the Division Bench committed error in rejecting the application for revocation filed by the appellant."
24. It is true that issuance/non-issuance of a citation to a party is left to the jurisdiction of a probate Court. However, in facts of the case on hand, having regard to the fact that 11 there was sufficient material to prima-facie indicate that the respondents were the wife and children of Manohar Prasad coupled with the fact that Manohar Prasad had other relatives who are related to Manohar Prasad in the same degree or a nearer degree as the appellant, it was necessary for the appellant as well as the probate Court to issue notice/citation to them as provided in Section 283(1)(c) of the Act r/w. Rule 5(1)(iv) of the Rules. In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant has not complied with Section 283(1)(c) of the Act r/w Rule 5(1)(iv) of the Rules and notice/special citation of the proceedings was not served by the appellant or the probate Court either on the respondents herein or other relatives who are related to Manohar Prasad in the same degree or a nearer degree as the appellant. It is therefore clear that it was incumbent upon the appellant to serve notice/special citation of the proceedings upon the respondents herein or the other relatives of Manohar Prasad and the omission on the part of the appellant to do so not only renders the proceedings defective in substance but would also vitiate the grant of probate.
25. In the said P & SC No. 1/2001, apart from not citing anyone else as parties to the proceedings as stated supra, in the cause title to his petition, the appellant described the respondents as "all concerned". Having done so, it was absolutely essential on the part of the appellant to issue notice of the petition by way of paper publication published in a reputed/prominent daily newspaper having wide and sufficient circulation and also published regularly so as to notify all interested/concerned persons, especially the respondents herein and other relatives of Manohar Prasad to become aware of the proceedings and have their say in the matter by affording them sufficient opportunity in this regard. Instead, appellant got the notice of P & SC No. 1/2001 published in a newspaper, 'Jai Bhima Gada'."
(Emphasis supplied) 12 The coordinate Bench holds that Section 283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act contemplates a situation in P & SC proceedings to issue notice calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate, before granting probate in favour of the appellant therein. I am in complete agreement with what is held in the aforesaid case. The situation, in the case at hand, is identical to what was considered by the coordinate Bench. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by trial Court in directing to take steps against the legal heirs. If there is none, it is for the petitioner to place such material before the Court.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petition, however reserving liberty as aforesaid, the petition stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ