Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Leela Vaidyanathan vs Nil on 4 September, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:34998
WP No. 21159 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 21159 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MRS. LEELA VAIDYANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
W/O LATE N. RAMANARAYANAN
RESIDING AT NO. 22E,
ASSET GARDENIA AND ENCLAVE
RAMAGONDANAHALLI, VARTHUR ROAD
WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 006.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NIL
Digitally
signed by ...RESPONDENT
NAGAVENI
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
Location:
High Court CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED
of Karnataka
18.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE LXXII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL COURT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYO HALL
BENGALURU IN P AND SC NO. 25010/2020 ON IA FILED BY
PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE AND TO DIRECT THE OFFICE TO ISSUE THE
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER
(i.e., ANNEXURE -A) BY ALLOWING THE IA FILED BY THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:34998
WP No. 21159 of 2025
HC-KAR
PETITIONER IN THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT IN P AND SC
NO. 25010/2020 i.e., ANNEXURE -B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayers:
"i. to issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ or orders or directions, quashing order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Hon'ble LXXIII Additional City Civil Court and Sessions Judge Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in P & SC NO.25010/2020 on IA filed by Petitioner under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and to direct the office to issue the letters of Administration in the name of Petitioner (i.e. Annexure-A) by allowing the I.A filed by the Petitioner in the Hon'ble Trial Court in P & SC No.25010/2020 i.e. Annexure - B. ii. to award costs and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and expedient in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The petitioner is the sister of one V. Annapurna, who dies on 20.02.2003. The V. Annapurna had 2 siblings. The V. Annapurna dies leaving behind two survivors, one is V. Saroja and the other, the petitioner. It transpires that -3- NC: 2025:KHC:34998 WP No. 21159 of 2025 HC-KAR V. Saroja also dies and therefore the petitioner, the sole surviving sibling files a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the concerned court in P&SC.No.25010/2020. The petition was filed by both V. Saroja and the present petitioner. During the subsistence of the proceedings before the concerned court, V Saroja also dies on 19.04.2023. Therefore, the petitioner then files an application. The application is preferred to transfer the letter of administration to the hands of the present petitioner, who was the only surviving heir after the death of all the siblings. The application was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner was before this court in WP.No.2510/2025, which comes to be disposed directing consideration of the application. The application comes to be rejected, therefore the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The concerned Court by the impugned order rejects the application on the following grounds:
"12. The very genealogical tree marked at Ex P2 is extracted below for reference:
Mr. M. P. Vaidyanathan - FATHER
Mrs. Thangamma - MOTHER
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:34998
WP No. 21159 of 2025
HC-KAR
Mrs. V. Lakshmi Daughter) Deceased
W/o. Mr. P.
Chandrashekhar
Ms. Deceased
V. Annapurna (Daughter)
Single; In
whose name
the shares are
Mrs. (Son) Deceased
V.Narayanan
H/o. Mrs.
Lakshmi
Mrs. V. Kamala Daughter) Deceased
W/o. Mr. P.
Venkatesh
Mrs. V. Leela (Daughter)
W/o. Mr. N. Deceased
Ramanarayanan
Ms. V. Saroja
Single (Daughter)
13. Hence, as per the genealogical tree produced by the petitioner herself marked at Ex.P2 shows that there are other LRS of deceased petitioner No.2 as well as to the deceased V.Annapurna.
14. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner No.2 is unmarried and in that event her estate will fall upon the son and daughters and secondly on heirs of husband, thirdly upon the mother and father and fourthly upon the heirs of the father and lastly upon the heirs of the mother. Even to show that the mother and father of the petitioner No.2 died on 07.09.1996 and in the year 1945 respectively no document as such is produced.
15. Sec.372 of Indian Succession Act reads as follows:-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:34998 WP No. 21159 of 2025 HC-KAR
372. Application for certificate. -
(1) Application for such a certificate shall be made to the District Judge by a petition signed and verified by or on behalf of the applicant in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the signing and verification of a plaint by or on behalf of a plaintiff, and setting forth the following particulars, namely:-
(a) the time of the death of the deceased;
(b) the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of his death and, if such residence was not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Judge to whom the application is made, then the property of the deceased within those limits; (c)the family or other near relatives of the deceased and their respective residences;
(d)the right in which the petitioner claims;
(e) the absence of any impediment under section 370 or under any other provision of this Act or any other enactment, to the grant of the certificate or to the validity thereof if it were granted; and
(f) the debts and securities in respect of which the s certificate is applied for.
(2)If the petition contains any averment which the person verifying it knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, that person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 198 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
(3)Application for such a certificate may be made in respect of any debt or debts due to the deceased creditor or in respect of portions thereof.
16. As per Sec.372(1)(c) the petitioner have to furnish the particulars of the family or other near relatives of the deceased and their respective residences. However the petitioner No.1 not disclosed the near relatives which are seen in family tree Ex.P2 and not -6- NC: 2025:KHC:34998 WP No. 21159 of 2025 HC-KAR furnished the particulars of residence of said near relatives of the deceased. The application is silent in respect of the near relatives of the deceased petitioner No.2. The petition No.1 claims herself as sole surviving legal heir of petitioner No.2. However, the family tree Ex.P2 shows the existence of near relatives of petitioner No.2. Hence, the application does not disclose the material fact and there is suppression of other surviving legal heirs of deceased petitioner No.2. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 not made out grounds to allow the application. Accordingly, I answered point No.1 in the negative.
17. POINT No.2: For the various reasons discussed in point No.1 and findings given on it by me, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The application dated 16.11.2023 filed by the petitioner No.1 u/sec.151 of CPC is hereby rejected."
The reason so rendered by the concerned Court on the face of it, is erroneous.
4. The Apex Court while considering an identical issue in the case of SHAMBHU PRASAD AGARWAL V. BHOLA RAM AGARWAL reported in (2000) 9 SCC 714, has held that the letter of administration can be transferred in favour of the beneficiary of the Will, upon the death of the Executor. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as follows:-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:34998 WP No. 21159 of 2025 HC-KAR "5. We find that it is not disputed that Matadin Agarwal was a legatee under the will. It is true that Matadin Agarwal ought to have applied for issue of letters of administration and not for probate. However, this did not debar his heirs to get the probate petition amended. The trial court rejected both the applications of the appellants on the ground that since the probate petition filed by the legatee related to his personal right, therefore no right accrued to the appellants for their substitution in his place. This view, according to us, is not correct. Matadin Agarwal, as stated above, was a legatee and not an executor under the will. It is true that where an executor dies, his heirs cannot be substituted because the executor possessed personal right, but this is not applicable where the heirs of a legatee apply for issue of letters of administration. It is not disputed that today the appellants can file a petition for issue of letter of administration. Since considerable time has elapsed, we feel that the interest of justice demands that the proceedings should come to an end as early as possible and we should not dismiss this appeal merely on highly technical ground.
(Emphasis supplied) Later, the High Court of Delhi following the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of RAJ RANI BHASIN V. STATE reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1054, has held as follows:
"14. What has however weighed with me against blindly following the aforesaid dicta is the long span of time taken in the Courts in disposal of such proceedings. The present petition, even though uncontested, has been pending for the last over 12 years. Though most of the said long span is attributable to the laxity of the petitioner, considerable time has also been taken in serving the respondents, who even though subsequently filed no objection and/or did not chose to contest, are -8- NC: 2025:KHC:34998 WP No. 21159 of 2025 HC-KAR under the law necessarily required to be served. Time in such cases is also taken in issuance of citation, and in obtaining valuation of the estate with respect to which the petition is filed. If such petitions are contested, at least insofar as for grant of probate, under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, the procedure prescribed for disposal thereof is as of a suit. This entails examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The petition for probate may not be instituted necessarily by the executor. The petition may be instituted by a beneficiary under the Will, either in absence of any executor or on the refusal of the executor to act. Such petitioners may either be the sole beneficiaries under the Will or may be only one of the beneficiaries. The question which arises is, what is to happen in the case of demise of such a petitioner. Since the petition even in those cases would be only for grant of probate, i.e., only for determining the validity of the Will and not for establishing any rights in any of the properties, if the judgments aforesaid are to be applied, the position in those cases would also be the same i.e. the petition would abate on the demise of the petitioner. In such contested cases if substitution is not to be permitted and the person who on the demise of the original petitioner may be interested in seeking the probate/letters of administration is required to institute a fresh petition, it would entail waste of the proceedings undertaken till then and would require fresh service of witnesses and examination of witnesses who may have already been examined. Some of such witnesses may not even survive for that long and possibility of disappearance of valuable evidence which may swing the ultimate result of the proceedings, cannot be ruled out.
15. The Supreme Court in B. Banerjee v. Smt. Anita Pan, (1975) 1 SCC 166 (though dissented with on another point in Deena v. UOI, (1983) 4 SCC 645) held that where two interpretations are possible, that which validates the statute and shortens litigation, should be preferred to the one which invalidates or proliferates. It was further held that the Courts must avoid multiplicity of litigation. Any interpretation of a statute which will obviate -9- NC: 2025:KHC:34998 WP No. 21159 of 2025 HC-KAR purposeless proliferation of litigation, without whittling down the effectiveness of the effectiveness of the protection for the parties sought to be helped by the legislation, should be preferred to any literal, pedantic, legalistic or technically correct alternative. In that case also the Apex Court was conscious that to shorten litigation in the manner directed therein, they were straining the language to the little extent of interpreting the expression in the statue under consideration. However, it was held that public justice and social gain ought to be promoted. Such considerations are germane to the larger concept of justice, which it is the duty of the Courts to promote.
... ... ...
17. Having examined the matter in the said light, I do not see any prejudice which would be caused to the opposition/competing party if the proceedings are permitted to be continued by a person other than original petitioner, whether by way of substitution or by way of impleadment. Order 23 Rule 1A also provides that in the case of withdrawal or abandonment of a suit by the plaintiff, a defendant may apply to the transposed as the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. In a case for grant of Letters of Administration or a probate, the particulars of the close relatives of the deceased who may be interested in contesting the petition or who may have an interest in the estate are required to be given and are treated as respondents. Any one of them, on the demise of the original petitioner, may be interested in continuing the proceedings and can be so substituted. As far as the question of suffering the prejudice is concerned, I find that the fear of the administration/probate being granted to a person other than that to whom the respondents have given no objection/consent can be eliminated by providing that upon so happening the Court may again seek the no objection/consent of such persons/respondents. In most of the cases requirement may not be found for the same. Even if in the cases where the petition is by the named executor or by a person being one of the several successors under the personal law applicable to the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34998 WP No. 21159 of 2025 HC-KAR deceased, I feel that if any of the beneficiaries and/or another heir is interested in continuing the proceedings, the same ought to be permitted. The same will save the time and costs of the Court and also may be beneficial to the litigants.
18. This should however not be understood as entitling the proceedings to be continued by a person who otherwise has no interest in outcome thereof or by the heirs/legal representatives of an executor simplicitor and which heirs/legal representatives do not themselves have any right to or interest in the estate of which administration is sought or probate of Will with respect whereto is sought. The right to continue proceedings is of the person who on demise of original petitioner is desirous of seeking administration or interested in the probate.
... ... ...
21. A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Santi Swarup Sarkar v. Pradip Kumar Sarkar, AIR 1997 Calcutta 197 allowed the beneficiary under the Will to proceed with and continue probate proceedings upon demise of the surviving executor who had originally applied therefor. In doing so, while not overruling the earlier judgments of the same High Court noted by me hereinabove, it was held that in doing so the substance of the matter to be decided in the case was not affected. Similarly, in Re: Satidas Mukherjee alias S.D. Mukherjee v. In Re: Sudip Mukherjee, MANU/WB/0360/2004 also continuance of proceedings was allowed on the principle of taking note of subsequent events and not as substitute. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Govind M. Asrani v. Jairam Asrani, AIR 1963 Madras 456 held that, on the demise of the executors who had applied for probate, legatees under the Will were permitted to continue the petition. There also, while upholding the principle that in applying for probate/letters of administration the right asserted is a personal right, continuance of proceedings was allowed placing reliance on the doctrine/principle that the Court is entitled to take note of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34998 WP No. 21159 of 2025 HC-KAR subsequent events and to mould the reliefs accordingly. The Court, however, held that the application for coming on record should be made as one seeking the direction of the Court and not under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC.
... ... ...
23. The Gujarat High Court in Jadeja Pravinsinhji Anandsinhji v. Jadeja Mangalsinhji Shivsinhji, AIR 1963 Gujarat 32 while similarly not disturbing the finding that the right to apply for probate is personal to the executor and does not survive after the death of the executor, however, relied upon the provisions of the Indian Succession Act enabling the beneficiary to apply for probate on the failure of the executor. It was held that upon the demise of the executor, the beneficiary under the Will is entitled to continue the proceedings. It was held that the executor was also seeking to establish the will not for himself but for the benefit of the beneficiary and thus the action of the executor was a representative action which can be continued by those who he represents. Reliance on the principle contained in Order 1 Rule 8, CPC was made.
24. In fact the Apex Court in Shambhu Prasad Agarwal v. Bhola Ram Agarwal, (2000) 9 SCC 714 also disapproved of the dismissal of the applications for substitution of the petitioner in a probate case on the ground of the petitions having been filed in a personal right. It was held that where an executor dies though his heirs cannot be substituted because the executor possessed personal right but this is not applicable where the heirs of a legatee apply for issuance of a letters of administration. It was held that since there is no dispute that the applicants could file an independent petition for issuance of letters of administration, there can be no objection to allow them to continue the petition.
25. Coming now to the facts of the present case, the estate of which administration is sought is of the deceased brother of one of the petitioners and of the deceased brother of the predecessor of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34998 WP No. 21159 of 2025 HC-KAR the other petitioners. They are claiming the rights through the mother of the deceased upon whom alone the said estate devolved by succession. All close relatives who could possibly have had objection have either consented to the grant of administration or chosen not to oppose. The only difference today is that of the two petitioners who were substituted in place of the original petitioner, one has expired. The result of declining the application for substitution would be to compel them to institute proceedings afresh. With respect, I am unable to concur with the old Calcutta judgments and the recent judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court. With respect, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has proceeded on a technical view of the matter and with respect whereto there can be no disagreement. However, the Court in that case was not faced with the practical difficulties/delays arising in disposal of such petition and with the contention considered by me above of the waste in following such an interpretation/procedure. I, applying the principles discussed above, hold the petition to be maintainable. Accordingly, IA No. 14400/2007 for substitution is allowed.
(Emphasis supplied) In the afore-quoted judgment, the High Court of Delhi holds that Courts must avoid multiplicity of litigation and strive to shorten litigation wherever possible. In the case at hand, the petitioner is an octogenarian and the sole surviving beneficiary to the Will. Therefore, it would be appropriate to transfer the letter of administration in favour of the present petitioner. In the light of the settled principle of law rendered
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34998 WP No. 21159 of 2025 HC-KAR by the Apex Court and the High Court of Delhi, the petition deserves to succeed.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The concerned Court shall close the proceedings before it by issuance of a letter of administration in the name of the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14 CT BHK