Karnataka High Court
B.A.Gautham vs Nil on 27 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
PROB. C.P. NO.1/2023
BETWEEN:
1. B.A.GAUTHAM
S/O LATE B.A.ANAND RAO
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT 168/D/E,
5TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
J.P.NAGAR 3RD PHASE
BENGALURU-560 078. ... PETITIONER
(BY MS.SANJANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NIL ... RESPONDENT
THIS PROB CP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 232(a), 276 AND
CHAPTER IV OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 READ
WITH RULE 5 OF THE RULES GOVERNING PROBATE AND
ADMINISTRATION MATTERES, 1964 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PETITIONER TO PROVE THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT DATED
31.12.1997 OF LATE SRI. B.A.ANANDA RAO, IN COMMON FORM
GRANT LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND
CREDITS OF SRI B.A.ANANDA RAO OF THW WILL DATED
31.12.1997 ANNEXED HEREWITH, TO HAVE EFFECT
THROUGHOUT INDIA.
2
THIS PROB. CP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 23.06.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition is filed under Section 232(a), 276 and
Chapter IV of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Rule 5
of the Rules Governing Probate and Administration Matters, 1964
and sought for the relief to allow the petitioner to prove the Last
Will and Testament dated 31.12.1997 executed by late Sri B.A.
Ananda Rao and grant Letters of Administration in favour of the
petitioner in respect of the schedule properties and credits of
Sri B.A. Ananda Rao of the Will dated 31.12.1997 and grant such
other relief as deems fit in the circumstance of the case.
3. The factual matrix of case of the petitioner is that
the testator Sri B.A. Ananda Rao professed Hindu religion and
was residing in Bangalore City which was his fixed place of abode
within the jurisdiction of this Court and he was also ordinarily a
resident of Bangalore City having permanent residence at No.
3
168D/E, 5th Main, 3rd Cross, J.P. Nagar 3rd Phase, Bangalore and
he had executed a Will and Testament dated 31.12.1997 and he
also passed away within the jurisdiction of this Court on
25.08.2003.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Testator's
younger son Sri Anil Bapu predeceased him on 30.05.1997 and
thereafter only he had executed the present Will and while
executing the Will, his wife Smt. Pramila A. Rao and elder son Sri
B.A. Gautam, who is the petitioner herein were alive and his
widow also passed away on 23.07.2022. The Testator was
owning both movable and immovable properties and the said
properties listed in schedule are referred to as schedule
properties. The Testator was in sound and disposing state of
mind at the time of execution of the Will and also had full mental
capacity to understand the purport of the Will. The Testator was
not suffering from any infirmities affecting his mental ability
either at the time of execution of the Will or otherwise.
5. The Will was duly executed by the Testator in the
presence of two attesting witnesses Sri M.R. Guruprasad and Sri
4
M.B. Rao also known as Sri Madava Rao Bhima Rao. Sri M.B. Rao
died on 11.03.2017. The affidavit of Sri M.R. Guruprasad, the 1st
attesting witness is produced and the affidavit of Sri Kiran Kumar
Bheemrao, son of late Sri M.B. Rao also known as Sri Madhava
Rao Bhima Rao, identifying the signature of his father, who was
the 2nd attesting witness is also produced along with the petition.
6. The petitioner is the son of the Testator. Except the
petitioner herein, the Testator has not left behind any other
Class I heirs. It is also contented that the Will does not appoint
an Executor/Executrix, the petitioner in his capacity as the
Universal Legatee to the estate of the Testator, is entitled to
seek grant of Letters of Administration with respect to the estate
of the Testator. The petitioner also undertakes to administer the
estate of the Testator and make a full and true inventory of his
assets and exhibit the same after the grant of Letters of
Administration and also to render the true accounts of the
estate. It is also stated that the value of the movable and
immovable properties is Rs.6,53,000/- and undertakes to pay
5
the prescribed Court fee at the time of grant of Letters of
Administration.
7. The petitioner also filed an application to dispense
the notice to the Deputy Commissioner and the same was
dismissed at the first instance and later on, an application was
filed undertaking to pay the maximum Court fee of Rs.39,000/-.
Hence, this Court allowed the application by recalling the earlier
order and permitted to pay the maximum Court fee of
Rs.39,000/- vide order dated 19.06.2014. It is also noticed that
a prayer for citation is also sought by filing an application
I.A.No.2/2024 and this Court allowed to give paper publication in
English daily newspaper 'The Hindu' and Kannada daily
newspaper 'Udayavani', Bangalore edition and accordingly, paper
publication was taken and none appeared before the Court
claiming any interest.
8. Hence, this Court, having considered the material on
record, allowed the petitioner to examine himself and examine
the witness to prove very execution of the Will before the CPC.
Accordingly, the petitioner examined a witness M.R.Guru Prasad,
6
who is an attesting witness to the document of Will. The witness
in the evidence says that he is conversant with LTM found on the
said document and he can also identify the signature of Testatrix
and stated that Testatrix affixed his signature on the Will in the
presence of other witness Sri M.B. Rao. He also says that he
signed as a witness to the Will and thereafter, other attesting
witness also signed in his presence and also identifies the
signature of the Testatrix as Ex.P1(a) and his signature as
Ex.P1(b) and also the signature of the Scribe Advocate Sridhar
as Ex.P1(e).
9. The petitioner also examined himself as P.W.2 and in
his evidence also, he says that he was looking after his father
and mother all along. Hence, his father bequeathed his
properties in his favour and also in favour of his mother and
identifies the Will as Ex.P1. The petitioner also produced the
Death Certificate of his father as Ex.P2 and also the Death
Certificate of his mother as Ex.P3, Death Certificate of his
brother as Ex.P4 and paper publication as Exs.P5 and P6.
7
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that Will is marked as Ex.P1 and in order to prove the fact that
younger son of the Testator also passed away and so also
mother passed away, documents are also placed on record and
this petitioner is the only son and out of two witnesses, one
witness passed away and another witness is examined as P.W.1
and attesting witness also identifies the signature of the
Testatrix. Hence, will is proved and prayed the Court to grant
the relief.
11. Having considered the material on record and in
order to prove the execution of Will, attesting witness P.W.1 is
examined and P.W.1 identifies the signature of Testatrix as well
as his signature and also the attesting witness signature and
particularly got marked the document of Will as Ex.P1.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
also the material available on record, the points that would arise
for consideration of this Court are:
8
(1) Whether the petitioner has made out the
grounds to grant Letter of Administration as
sought in the petition?
(2) What order?
Point No.(1)
13. Having perused the Will, the same was executed by
Sri B.A. Ananda Rao and in the Will, he has shown the
immovable properties as Schedule 'A' and movable properties
are Schedule 'B'. In paragraph No.5 of the Will, it is mentioned
regarding the ownership of the immovable property and also
stated that son Anil had undergone surgery due to complications
and he expired on 30.05.1997. It is also stated in paragraph
No.6 that having acquired the property he had built a house in
the ground floor measuring approximately 20 squares and the
construction was completed in the year 1983. It is also stated
that he made a gift deed in favour of son B.A.Gautham in
respect of terrace on the ground floor measuring approximately
1,760 square feet, including the terrace area on the garage. He
has put a construction of about approximately 9 squares in the
year 1991. It is also stated that the said property is a self-
9
acquired property and none can have any claim over the same.
He is having mental capacity to bequeath the property and
stated in the Will that he bequeathed this property absolutely to
his wife Smt. Pramila A. Rao and she shall have the absolute
right to keep the property as she wishes and in any manner
whatsoever. In case she were to pre-decease him, God forbid,
then this Schedule 'A' property shall absolutely go to the son
B.A. Gautham and his son and daughter-in-law both have taken
care of him and his wife.
14. Even in paragraph No.10 also in respect of movable
properties stated that the same shall go to wife and in the event
of his wife were to predecease him, the said movable property
shall go to his son. In paragraph No.11 also stated that he is
having an account in Indian Overseas Bank, S.B. Account No.
4323 which is being operated by him, his wife and son as the
same is in joint name. After his demise, if B.A.Gautham has to
operate, it shall be with consent of his wife. Whatever the
balance amount is found on the day when the Will becomes
enforceable, the same shall go to wife absolutely and in the
10
event of wife were to predeceased him, same shall go to his son.
He also stated that he is having two lockers in Indian Overseas
Bank which are being operated by himself and his wife as they
are in joint name of himself and his wife. The said lockers shall
continue in his wife's name. The details are also given in the
Will and provision is also made under the Will in respect of the
immovable property and so also movable properties.
15. Now, the petitioner has produced the documents of
Will and Death Certificate of his brother as Ex.P2 and Death
Certificate of mother as Ex.P3 and also got examined the
attesting witness as P.W.1, who identifies the signature and the
same is not disputed and Will which is marked is proved by
examining the attesting witness P.W.1, who identifies his
signature as well as the signature of the Testatrix as well as
another witness, who is no more. Hence, petitioner has proved
the Will.
16. Having proved the Will and also considering other
documents, it is very clear that though provision is made in
favour of the wife of the Testatrix at the first instance and wife
11
of the Testatrix is deceased in the year 2022 and Death
Certificate is also produced to that effect. Hence, the property
goes to the petitioner in terms of the Will which is marked as
Ex.P1.
17. Now, the question before this Court is with regard to
issuance of Letter of Administration as sought by the petitioner
and petitioner also undertakes to administer the estate of the
Testator and sought the Letter of Administration that he is
entitled to seek grant of Letters of Administration and further
contended that the petitioner is the son of the Testator and
accept the petitioner, Testator has not left behind any other
Class-I heir and also Will does not appoint an Executor/Executrix
and the petitioner in his capacity as the Universal Legatee to the
estate of the Testator is entitled for the relief of issuance of
Letter of Administration.
18. Having considered the grounds urged in the petition
as well as Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925-Grant
of administration of universal or residuary legatees, Section
232(a) is very clear that the deceased has made a Will, but has
12
not appointed an Executor, the object is also very clear that the
Section is to protect the possible rights of next of kin to effect
the administration of the Testator when no Executor has been
appointed. It is also very clear that it should be made to the
person, who has the greatest interest in the estate of the
Testator. The universal or residuary legatee is the Testator's
choice. When the whole estate is given to one person, he is
described as the universal legatee or devisee and he has the first
right to the Will.
19. The petitioner also in the petition in paragraph No.7
of the petition has categorically undertaken to administer the
estate of the Testator and make a full and true inventory of his
assets and exhibit the same after the grant of Letters of
Administration and also to render the true accounts of the estate
and a direction can be given to the petitioner to do the same by
granting Letters of Administration.
20. Having considered the contents of the Will, it is very
clear that property was bequeathed to wife and all rights are
given and also made it clear that, if she predeceases, then the
13
same shall go to his son and the petitioner is the only son
remaining, since already the younger son of the Testator has
passed away and he predeceased the Testatrix and documents
which have been placed before the Court is also very clear that
the petitioner is the universal legatee as he is the only son left.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.(1) as 'affirmative' and the
petitioner has made out the grounds to grant the relief of Letters
of Administration.
Point No.(2)
21. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed and Letter of Administration is granted in favour of the petitioner as sought.
(ii) The petitioner shall file an affidavit of assets and valuation within one month.
(iii) The petitioner shall duly administer the property and credits of the deceased after 14 making a full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this Court within six months from the date of issue of probate and
(iv) The petitioner shall render a true account of the property and credits of the deceased to this Court within one year from the date of issuing probate to him.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE ST