Karnataka High Court
Jaipal Reddy vs V Deepa on 30 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4256-DB
M.F.A. No.7375/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7375/2022 (ISA)
BETWEEN:
JAIPAL REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.275/18
15TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD
Digitally signed
LAKKASANDRA LAYOUT
by ARSHIFA WILSON GARDEN
BAHAR KHANAM
BANGALORE - 560030.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADV.,)
AND:
V. DEEPA
W/O C. NANJA REDDY
AGED 41 YEARS
R/AT. THYAVAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN - 562 125.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G.V. SHASHI KUMAR, ADV.,)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4256-DB
M.F.A. No.7375/2022
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 299 OF INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT, 1925, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN P&SC NO.5034/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 28.07.2022 PASSED IN THE SAID CASE, I.E., P&
SC NO.5034/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL, BANGALORE
RURAL DISTRICT & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This MFA is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Call for records in P&SC No.5034/2021 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District.
b) Set aside the order dated 28.07.2022 passed in the said case, i.e., P&SC No.5034/2021 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District.
c) Dismiss the said case i.e., P&SC No.5034/2021 filed by the Respondent on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District, u/s 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4256-DB M.F.A. No.7375/2022
d) Restore the order dated 24.02.2021 passed in P&SC No.5042/2019 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District, by allowing this appeal, in the interest of justice."
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the probate which is granted in his favour in respect of Will dated 26.11.2018 executed by P. Srinivasa Reddy has been revoked by the probate Court on the short ground that the appellant is not the executor designated in the Will and that therefore, probate could not have been granted. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a sole Legatee in terms of the Will dated 26.11.2018 and the said will has been duly proved before the probate Court. It is therefore, contended that the provocation of the probate on the ground that the appellant is not the executor of the Will is an incorrect proposition and that the sole Legatee can also deem to be the executor of the Will.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that a partition -4- NC: 2025:KHC:4256-DB M.F.A. No.7375/2022 suit was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, with regard to the property in question where the executor of the Will was himself a party. It is submitted that there was an earlier registered will dated 15.02.2017 by which the respondent was also a Legatee. It is submitted that the action of the appellant in having approached the probate Court as the sole Legatee under the later Will without making the other class II heirs as parties to the petition was itself illegal and that the probate could not have been granted. It is further contended that while this appeal was pending, the appellant has entered into a co-promotion agreement with a developer to defeat the rights of the respondent.
4. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the probate has been revoked on the short ground that it could not have been granted to the appellant who was not an executor designated in the Will. Having considered the contentions, we are of the opinion that by the will dated 26.11.2018, the appellant was a sole -5- NC: 2025:KHC:4256-DB M.F.A. No.7375/2022 Legatee and therefore, the question whether he was designated as executor under the Will would not arise and he could be deemed to be the executor in respect of the Will.
5. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the cancellation of the probate on the short ground that the appellant was not the executor designated under the Will would not be proper. However, we are of the opinion that in view of the contentions raised by the respondent, the question whether the Will dated 26.11.2018 stood proved and whether the appellant could claim rights over the property in terms of the said Will are matters which have to be considered with notice to the other class II heirs as well.
6. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the order of the probate Court setting aside the probate granted as also the order granting probate and remand the matter to the probate Court to consider the issue as to -6- NC: 2025:KHC:4256-DB M.F.A. No.7375/2022 whether the probate is liable to be granted in respect of the Will dated 26.11.2018 in facts of the case.
7. The parties shall mark appearance before the probate Court on 03.03.2025 and shall take up all their contentions before the said court. The respondent shall place appropriate applications seeking interim reliefs or protections, if any, within a week from the date on which they record appearance before the probate Court. Till such applications are placed on record, further action in respect of the property in question shall not be precipitated by the appellant.
8. The appeal stands disposed of as above. All pending IAs are closed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4