Sri Vishwanatha vs Smt Rani W/O A Thangaraj on 22 January, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Vishwanatha vs Smt Rani W/O A Thangaraj on 22 January, 2010

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIs THE 22"" DAY or JANUARY 2010

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH s.AoI,.VV_j-.._:"~.._

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.428e.IéfJ'06V»'_'gf f r.- 

C/W <

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL reo.53'T9.)'jigoo''e~:: - _ _: E'

IN M.F.A.NO.4280f2€306

BETWEEN:

1 .

Sri. \/tshwanatha.
Aged about 69 years, 
Sfo Seetharaman. '

SrI.Amaranathan    u  
Aged about 64t.:ya_ars. iS.I='o 'Seeth4ara~;T_T_ar:~ ~

Sré_'tDeeIT'a..Dhaya'ia'I1 A 
Aged atpout 5i+yeaI's. 
S.»-'o E3eetETaraman;*.V  

Sn Raxteorédvraen  A V
A'g'edA.about  years."

fS;=o SLeetE_1ararTT'ar2;_-- ..... .. <

 " AH arve'*re'sIée"I'o--.g at No.78.
  Lérte.,.€\/larEi<up;oanT.
 'I'/;.G.F.,--?§o%a1=I' District.

JXPPELLANTS

 '{8y SréiaN.Sv.,SeshadI'I. SrI.GPap§ Roddy
" I["--__&"~Snré.[\/.\/Er:o_d Re-ddy. Advsf;

Smt, Rani,
Aged about 70 years
Wfo A. Thangaraj.



2. Sn. Satya
Aged aboui 45 years.
S.-"o A. Tinangarai.

3. Smt. Jhansi.
Aged about 45 years.
Do A. Thangaraj.

4. Sn. Johnson.
Aged about 50 years.
So A. Thangaraj

5. Sm1.Sarojin§
Aged about 43 years.
{To A. Thangaraj

ES. Smi. Indira 
Aged abou139 years;  
Dzo A. Thangaraj.

All §\%os.1 to 6 _are__resid'i'ng" ' Q
At ¥\éo.140. §\%eW;.Stree:i.. "
Arukaniharn?oAn_d_é=i ' _ __ 

Thottapalyaner.'Veiiore.  '
Tamr__inadU;..y "  A

7. Sré  ajfr   .* -'
Agecéabout 4.0 y'e'a:js.~..  
S;-'o Se'e1hararna.n."'.A' . 

8. £§n1"1. ..¥r<arpay»a.rnj A
  ..':_A¢gedgab.QuE 55"yea..r.s«.'
'  'D:"o"Sgeeth~ar'aman.

 A  @.:'Ka|avathr.
 "Aged aboui.I=45 years.
  Trgangaraj

 Nos..V__d? to 9 are residing
" *=.At No.78. Cyanide Line

A 2  Nfiarikuppam. !<.G.F..
Koiar Districi. ..F§ESPONDENTS

A 'rs:u(ByASri.M.Rudratah. Adv. for R1 to 6.
VA   Sri,K.Raghavendra Rad. Adv. for R7 to 9)



IN M.F.A.5379f2006

BETWEEN:

1 .

Sri. Raji @ Rajendra Prabhtt.
Aged about 40 years.
Sso Seetharaman.

Smt. Karpayam,
Aged about 56 years.
D50 Seetharaman.

Smt. Kala @ Kalavathi.
Aged about 45 years.
D,-='o A. Thangara;

Nos. 7 to 9 are residing.
At No.78, Cyanide Line 
E\/iarikupoam, ?<.G.F.. "
Kolar District. V

{BySri.G.Papi   

AND:

3 .

.<»~'> '

sit"  .  .

Aémt. Saropni

Sn1jsFtah'iA. u  g 
Aged abOt.ETV7C'.jv"C'.§1FS_  
W.-"0  Thangara}.   "

Sri_._SatyaV _ 
Agged about ii5._years.

~ . V t

  _ . . . . ..

'"8313;  
. "Aged abou!,'45t"years.
W Dfo A. "I"b.'an-sgarag'.

Sn. Jehrnavson,

x T Agedabout 50 years.
 A. Thangarat

Aged about 43 years.
D/o A. Thangarai



6. Smt, lndira
Aged about 39 years.
Do A. Thangarai.

All Nost to 6 are residing

At £\ioil40._ New Street,

Arukantham Pondi.

Thottapaiyarri. \/ettore.  " -1-
Tamithadu. ..RESPC}NDE?-t.§"S

(Rt Served)

These l\/liscettaneous First Appeats 'arei~ti_led Linder 'Section"2.99'ot
the lndian Succession Act against .the.___order'd_at'ed: t5;'3'.2'WQ6 passed in;
SiCiNo.2. t99£3 on the tite ot the Pres-i.di"n.g Otticer. 'F--ast'iTr'ack"Court-lll 8;
C50 lt Aodi. District Judge! l<olar.. attowingthe petition tited under Section
263 & 264 ot the Endian Succession Act to'--reixoke and'annut'iprobate and
letters ot Administration issued"'in P7_& 

these Appeals COiTlitlgH_C)_iv1..i{.)_r iﬁeaiiltgi"i.ijiiS~itfi:&.y4'; the Court delivered
the toitowingi A ' .  W.   . i. *

  g_;_i1_'::i,.c_; M E; 
Tl':eVse__appeia:s<.;are  .agais,iiit the order dated 15"' t\/larch
2006 in 8g -Si.dCi:"EiJ--s.._:2'-it9i9vEt:7...__Fiespondentsd to 6 had tited P 8:

S.{3.l\Jo.2.-t'$tE}E3iiLiiideri. and 264 ot the Indian Succession

Act, se;el<in.g reivoc.a_ti'o'n of the probate and letters or' administration

 iisisueid" in '~.S.CiNoii?tii'it993t It is alleged that the petitioners in

 had tiled P & S.C.No.4.='t993 seeking grant ot

 probate and ieﬁers oi' administration in pursuance of the alleged wilt

ii""--__id'e_ted 7g1..'$ﬂ'l,'.":':-  g it is also alleged that the resporidentsl to 6' who are

 giiti'e'iciO_iSiTe relatives ot the testatort were not made parties. Evert though

petitioners {applicants} were aware that these respondents are

:."interested parties and contesting the alteged wiil, still they were not made parties in P & S.C.i\io.4.»t993i These petitioners had filed O.8.l\io.508."1988 before the Subordinate Judge. Vellore and in the plaintt these petitioners have admitted that these respondents are contesting the alleged will and they have disputed the €)<eCLltlOlZ!('..Of>7Wlli by the testator. and despite the knowledge' these respoitd.S_?ltsV:were"-not made parties in the said P & SC No.4r'1993. it is citatron taken by these petitioners wa's""n'o«t. circulated in the area.

2. The learned judge havrr1g'Vi'i'rtovt receiyer.t:a'riy to-Ebjeietiori has granted the probate and lett;e:r':«of 9 S":C.No.4r-'t993. After the application tor revocation the learned Judge by the rmpt;i'g4nA€'fd-.order of grant of probate and ietter of adintnistr_ativ.o'n--. appeals are filed. 3, ZizearrtredvvCo'r;:.n:s'el_'t'o_r'"tvn_e* appetlants submits that, appeliants were not notirie'd;i though"tvhe.y"t~t!tedV. an application in i.A.l\/ under Order i V Rule '.t}1;}' CFC tor"*i.rnpl'eadr.rtg. however. same was atso rejected. He torth.e_rws1;b'nﬁitteo«t_that. when a valid citation is taken and the probate is gr'ante_d yriAn'vter--~njs oi'?-Section 263 of the lndian Succession Act, there is no _scopextorV___~i'nterteArer1ce with the grant of probate and also letter of "a'dnrii nistra'ti.o"n.

i On the contrary learned Counsel for the respondent Nost to 6 sljbrnttted that. the Wt" was seriously disputed when a notice was issued by the appellants before triing O.S.l\lo.508s't988 before the subordinate (1..

Judge. Vellore arid in the said Suit. the appellants have categoricalty admitted that these respondents have disputed the will. stilt the petitioners deliberately tried P & S.C.No.4.s-'1993. and they have suppressed the material fact. He submitted that, when the pa-rt_ies are contesting the will. there is no question of grant of probate a'sV"ad"m_ittedly the witl was disputed and it was required to be adjttdir;'a:tedrth' the provisions of Section 263 of the tndian »Successionian"Ct Vttngowitnig . 1 tullwetl of the same. the appellants suppir.ess'i_'ngiVthie'.s_aid"grhat§'i:igl'r1.t_act have sought for probate and tetter 'ot_v'adxrhinistraticn._ that. there is no valid pubtication in the tndian Succession Act, i. V L A

5. it is not in di~5Vpute:.t't1at'_-- trite' iarpfpel'iaVt'ttsﬁih" 'Mi=_A.No(5379i~'2ooe had toreiigiraht ot probate and tetter of 8d¥T1lﬂlSti"atvl"Oﬂ.' «. it is:ats:cc_hot_:i'in.:'d--ispute that the appellants had filed o.s.Ne.5_ea==198e before the Vsuibordirtate Judge. Vellore and it is also '"c.|,ear the ptainti'a'v'er--ments that the will in question was seriousty 'disputed gAb'y._the_"respondents. tn such circumstances. it was not correct for the 'aippeltaiﬁs seek for grant oi probate and letter of administration g without disc-!.osthg the material facts. It is in these circumstances, "l.earhed«.._JuVdge has revoked the grant of probate and tetter ot '--«i.adrr;;histrationt However. before revoturtg the order of grant of probate tetter of adrrtinistratioit the learned Judge should have heard the appellants. who were the beneficiaries of the orders, r§§s=tfi_"::.

6. I tirid that there is a serious dispute as regard to the wiii. In such circumstances. the matter is required to be adjudicated instead of directing the learned Judge to reconsider the proceedirtgsﬁn P & S.C.No.2:"199E3. It is appropriate to direct re~conside.ra_ti:>n'*aot.Vi?V & S.C.¥\Eo.-4 1993 it the contesting respondents are chaiIei=i.g'ing:=the'iixririticthe' matter has to be adjudicated.

Accordinglyf M_r:.A.No.42sor2oQs rspartly aretsmgt rrjjs dated 15.3.2006 passed in P & aside. P 8L S.C.No.4r"1993 is re-operiedi,_._"':~Appeitant's:;.__irrh'c.are petitioners in P & S.C.l\%o.4:'1993. are directedAtogﬁrtplevad as parties to the proceedings Addjitro'r"*.2rt_..:V.biystrict Judge. Kotar is directed to with law. In view of the disposal i'._tt)'tV.VF:4A.No.5379:'2OOE5 also stands disposed i « Sari/~ c IUSQE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court