IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
C.M. POONACHA, J.
SHESHAPPA S/O BARAMAPPA JOGAPPANAVAR – Appellant
Versus
PRAVEEN S/O BASAVANTAPPA JOGAPPANAVAR – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 102989 of 2024
Decided On : 17-12-2024
JUDGMENT :
C.M. POONACHA, J.
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Hereinafter referred to as “the Succession Act”] calling in question the order dated 26.06.2023 passed in P&SC No. 9/2023 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. [Hereinafter referred to as “the District Court”]
2. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondent instituted proceedings in P&SC No. 9/2023 under Section 372 of the Succession Act seeking for probate of the Will dated 21.03.2022 executed by one Bharmappa S/o Huliyappa Jogappanavar. [Hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”] No respondents were arrayed in the said proceedings. The District Court by order dated 26.06.2023 allowed the said P&SC No. 9/2023 and granted probate in respect of the Will dated 21.03.2022. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
3. It is the contention of the appellants that the appellant No. 1 is the son and appellants 2 to 5 are the grandchildren of the deceased. That the respondent herein being a grandson of the deceased ought not to have filed P&SC No. 9/2023 without arraying the appellants as party-respondents to the said proceedings.
4. It is relevant to note that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of N. Girish Singh v. Prem Khatri and Others in MFA No. 5819/2018 Order dated 28.04.2020 framed the following points for consideration:
(b) If the appeal would not be maintainable in law because the appellant has not had recourse to the provisions of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, what would be the just and reasonable order in the facts and circumstances of the case?”
4.1 Thereafter, this Court after considering various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as noticing the provisions of the Succession Act, held as follows:
(Emphasis supplied)
4.2 Thereafter, keeping in mind the factual matrix of the matter this Court ordered as follows:
(b) The operation of the impugned order dated 12.06.2018 in P&SC 293/2015 on the file of the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City is stayed for a period of six weeks from this day with further liberty to the appellant to make necessary application for stay in the proceedings that could be initiated by the appellant under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act
An appeal against the grant of probate is not maintainable without first seeking revocation under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The court ruled that failure to disclose necessary parties with caveatable interest justifies revocation of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.
A legatee or beneficiary can seek probate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, even if no executor is expressly named in the will, as the law allows for the appointment of an executor by necessary ....
Probate petition cannot be rejected due to pending subsequent civil suit challenging will's validity; proceedings must be consolidated for joint trial by District Judge.
Revocation of a probated will requires substantial evidence proving intention to revoke and adherence to legal formality; unregistered wills do not suffice without proof of revocation.
The appointment of an executor is not the sole criterion for granting probate, and other persons, depending on the circumstances, could also seek probate as per the provisions of the Indian Successio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.