Smt Manjulamma N vs Nil - Succession Act Appeal

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 3, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Smt Manjulamma N vs Nil on 18 March, 2026

-1-
MFA No. 2695 of 2025

RESERVED ON: 05.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 18.03.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                        PRESENT
   THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                            AND
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2695 OF 2025 (ISA)
BETWEEN:

SMT MANJULAMMA N
W/O SRI ANANDAKUMAR A
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ,
798/1, SAROJAMMA COMPOUND,
NEAR COCONUT GARDEN,
T DASRAHALLI,
BANGALORE NORTH - 560 057.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.HIREMATH PRAVEENKUMAR APPAYYA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

NIL
...RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 299 INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
14.02.2025 PASSED IN P & SC NO.15017/2023 ON THE FILE
OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL (TO SIT AT DEVANAHALLI), REJECTING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 276 OF INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT.
-2-
MFA No. 2695 of 2025

   THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED/ PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

                    CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

   The petitioner in Probate Application is before us in

this appeal filed under Section 299 of the Indian

Succession Act, 1925, calling in question the Judgment

dated 14.02.2025 in P & SC No.15017/2023, passed by

the V Addl. District Judge, Bengaluru Rural, sitting at

Devanahalli (for short 'the Probate Court').

1. The Probate Court by the impugned Judgment,

rejected the application filed under Section 276 of the

Indian Succession Act.

1. The parties are referred to as per their rankings

before the Probate Court.

1. The brief factual matrix is as under:

-3- MFA No. 2695 of 2025

The petitioner claims that one Late

Chikkaperumalappa had four sons namely Muniyappa,

Narayanappa, Narasimhaiah and Venkatappa. He died and

survived by his four sons. The second son Narayanappa

died way back in the year 1985 leaving behind his wife

Sarojamma. Smt.Sarojamma died on 09.03.2018. They

died issueless. The third son Narasimhaiah died and is

survived by his wife Lakshmamma and two children by

name Manjulamma - the petitioner and Krishnamurthy.

The other two children i.e., Muniyappa and Venkatappa,

are alive. Sarojamma, during her lifetime, executed a Will

in favour of the petitioner - Manjulamma bequeathing her

1/4th share in the family property.

1. It is further claimed by the petitioner that upon

death of Chikkaperumalappa, his fourth son Venkatappa

filed a suit in O.S.No.64/2007 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli seeking the relief of partition

and separate possession of his 1/4th share in respect of all

the joint family properties. The suit came to be decreed on

19.03.2014 granting the relief claimed in the suit. In the -4- MFA No. 2695 of 2025 said suit, Smt.Sarojamma was shown as defendant No.2

as she is representing the branch of Narayanappa, being

the sole legal representative upon his death.

1. The operative portion of the order passed in

O.S.No.64/2017 is as under:

"ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part.
The suit schedule properties are divided
into four fair and equal shares.

It is declared that the plaintiff,
defendants No.1 and 2 each entitled 1/4th
share in the suit schedule properties by metes
and bounds.
The defendants No.3 to 5 together
entitled 1/4th share in the suit schedule
properties by metes and bounds.
The claim of defendants No.6 and 7 is
hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw up preliminary decree accordingly."
7. The petitioner further claims that after the

preliminary decree, Sri.Venkatappa initiated Final Decree

Proceedings in No.11/2014. In the meanwhile,

Smt.Sarojamma during her lifetime, executed two Wills -5- MFA No. 2695 of 2025 dated 25.05.2015 and 02.11.2016. In the Will dated

25.05.2015 she has bequeathed her 1/4th share in the suit

schedule property in favour of both Manjulamma as well as

her brother. However, in the next Will dated 02.11.2016,

she has restricted it only in favour of Manjulamma i.e., the

petitioner. Smt.Sarojamma died on 09.03.2018.

1. The F.D.P filed in No.11/2014 was allowed by

order dated 18.06.2022, wherein upon demarcation of the

property by appointing the Commissioner, property in

Block No.3 has been allotted to the share of late

Smt.Sarojamma W/o Narayanappa. After the closure of

the FDP proceedings, allotting the share with boundaries

with respect of 1/4th share in favour of Sarojamma, the

petitioner instituted the petition in P & SC No.15017/2023

under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act for issuance of

Probate of registered Will dated 02.11.2016. Since none

were made as parties, the Probate Court, after institution

issued citation which was published in Hosa Digantha,

Kannada daily dated on 27.06.2023 calling upon the

interested parties to file their objections in respect of the -6- MFA No. 2695 of 2025 probate sought in the petition. However, none appeared to

claim any interest and participated in the proceedings.

1. The petitioner, in order to prove her case,

examined herself as PW.1 and two witnesses viz., PW.2,

the Scribe and PW.3, son of one of the attesting

witnesses, as the attesting witness has died, and produced

14 documents marked as Ex.P1 to P14.

1. Though all the requirements as envisaged for

issuance of Probate in terms of law have been complied as

contemplated under Section 276 and Section 63 of the

Indian Succession Act, the Probate Court proceeded to

hold that the other parties in Final Decree Proceedings

may come and challenge the order if the probate is issued

and on the said premise, rejected the petition, reserving a

liberty for the petitioner to appear before the FDP Court in

execution proceedings and produce the Will Deed which

enables the other parties of the said proceeding to contest

the matter. It is this judgment passed by the Probate

Court is called in question in this appeal. -7- MFA No. 2695 of 2025

1. Heard Sri.Hemanth Praveenkumar Appayya.,

learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused

the petition papers.

1. Since there are no respondents and also in view

of the fact that a citation was issued during the Probate

proceedings and none appeared and contested the matter,

we have proceeded to consider the case of the appellant

on merits.

1. It is trite law that once the requirements of Section 276 and 63 of Indian Succession Act have been

complied by examining the Scribe, Witness and producing

relevant documents, nothing survives further to consider

in the absence of any contentions by any other party. The

Probate Court only on the premise that in FDP proceedings

the petitioner was not a party and she has also not filed

any application to come on record in the said proceeding

as legal representative of the deceased, further, since the

parties of FDP were not made as party to enable the Court

to dispose of the petition on merits and also on the

premise that if the probate is issued, the parties of FDP -8- MFA No. 2695 of 2025 may come and challenge the order, rejected the probate

petition. This finding of the Probate Court is erroneous and

against the well-settled proposition of law. What is

bequeathed in the Will is the 1/4th share of Sarojamma,

which is not in dispute. The share has already been

declared in favour of said Sarojamma during her lifetime in

the suit filed by Venkatappa and in the FDP proceedings,

the very same properties have been allotted to her share

with boundaries, being the 1/4th share of the properties. In

these circumstances, the Probate Court could not have

expanded scope of the Probate as once the valid

ingredients of Section 276 and Section 63 having been

complied, more so in the absence of any contentions

raised by any person consequent to publication of notice in

terms of the order passed by the Probate Court.

1. Furthermore, since there is no dispute between

the parties inter se with regard to 1/4th share, in view of

preliminary decree as well as disposal of Final Decree by

appointing Court Commissioner and demarcating the

properties, on this count also, the Probate Court erred in -9- MFA No. 2695 of 2025 holding that if the probate is granted, the parties in FDP

may come and challenge the order. In these

circumstances, the entire finding of the Probate Court is

erroneous.

1. The coordinate bench of this Court in MFA

No.4477/2023 in the case of SMT.RENUKA decided on

17.02.2025, in Paragraph No.15 has held as under:

"15. In the instant case, the
application under Section 276 of the
Indian Succession Act was duly filed by
the sole legatee. Notice was taken out
through paper publication. There were no
objections. The Will was duly proved. In
the circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the rejection of probate was wholly
unjustified."
16. In these circumstances, we hold that the order

of rejection to grant probate is wholly erroneous and

unjustified and required to be set-aside and accordingly, it

is set-aside and we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

I. The appeal is allowed.

• 10 - MFA No. 2695 of 2025 II. The judgment dated 14.02.2025 in P &

SC No.15017/2023 passed by the V

Addl. District Judge, Bengaluru Rural,

sitting at Devanahalli is hereby set

aside. The probate application filed by

the petitioner is allowed.

III. The Probate Court shall issue Probate of

Will of Smt.Sarojamma dated

02.11.2016 in due form to the

appellant, forthwith.
Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE

                                      Sd/-

(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN