Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Sri Veeranna T., S/o Late Ujjinappa - Appellant
Writ Petition No.21830 of 2025 (GM - CPC)
Decided On : 08-01-2026
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 222, 264, and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking probate of a registered Will executed by the deceased Basamma in favor of the petitioner (!) .
The Will was executed by Basamma, who was the maternal aunt of the petitioner, and she bequeathed her property to the petitioner (!) .
The petitioner discovered the Will after her death, which occurred on 28-09-1999, and sought probate to facilitate the transfer of property in his name (!) .
The concerned Court issued an order directing the petitioner to take steps to serve legal heirs, if any, of Basamma, under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, and to do so by a certain date (!) .
The Court's order was based on the premise that notice to the legal heirs was necessary, especially considering the possibility that Basamma's husband predeceased her (!) (!) .
The petitioner contended that Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act was not applicable because Basamma had executed a Will, not died intestate, and thus, no notice to legal heirs was necessary (!) .
The Court noted that, in the absence of evidence regarding the presence of other legal heirs and given that no party appeared to contest the Will after due notice, the issue of notice under Section 283 of the Act was critical (!) .
The Court emphasized that issuance of notice under Section 283(1)(c) of the Act is mandatory when there is a possibility that the deceased had other legal heirs, especially when the proceedings involve the estate of a person who might have relatives in the same or nearer degree (!) (!) .
The Court referred to legal principles that require notice to all persons claiming an interest in the estate before granting probate, and that failure to issue such notice invalidates the proceedings (!) (!) .
In this case, the petitioner did not serve notice on the legal heirs or other interested parties, which rendered the proceedings defective and the order granting probate unsustainable (!) .
The Court ultimately disposed of the petition, affirming that the proceedings were flawed due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement of notice, and therefore, the petition was dismissed (!) .
The Court reserved liberty for the petitioner to produce further material if available, but found no merit in the petition as filed (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal reasoning and factual findings of the judgment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and will. (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments against the necessity of issuing notice to heirs. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on legal requirements for probate. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. conclusion and order denying the petition. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 18-06-2025 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Bangalore Rural District in P & SC No.53 of 2024.
2. Heard Sri K. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. The petitioner files a petition under Sections 222, 264 r/w 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) seeking probate of the registered Will executed by deceased Basamma in favour of the petitioner. It is the averment in the petition that Basamma, W/o late Chennaiah was the sole and absolute owner in possession of land bearing Sy.No.80, new No.80/3 measuring 2 acres, out of 5 acres and 20 guntas in Thotagere Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk which was purchased by her. The history would be, Basamma married Chennaiah, they had no issues. Petitioner herein is said to be the son of younger sister of Basamma by name Munigangamma and the said Basamma was being taken care of by the petitioner. Basamma during her life time had executed a registered Will on 18-11-1991 bequeathing afore-mentioned property in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of the same. It is said that he comes to know of the Will while searching old documents in the house and comes across the original Will executed by the deceased Basamma.
3.2. The petitioner in terms of the Will, as a legatee to act under the Will, sought probate of the same to enable him to have the RTC of the said property changed into his name. Therefore, he approaches the revenue authorities on 01-06-2024 seeking change of entry in his name on the strength of the Will. But, the respective Departments which he is said to have approached sought orders of the Court by granting probate of the Will. Therefore, he approached the concerned Court. The concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 18-06-2025, directed the petitioner to take steps to serve the legal heirs, if any of Basamma in terms of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and posted the matter to a particular date. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the concerned Court which directs issuance of notice to the legal heirs, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner sought probate of the registered Will. The testatrix of the Will died on 28-09-1999 and therefore, there is no necessity of even issuance of notice to the legal heirs or supposed legal heirs of the maternal aunt of the petitioner. He would submit that the petition be allowed and a direction be issued to probate the Will.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record.
6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. What drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is the order dated 18-06-2025. The order reads as follows:
“This petition is preferred seeking the relief of grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 18.11.1991 said to have been executed by Smt.Basamma the maternal aunt of the petitioner.
It is the say of petitioner that Basamma though married had no children in her wed-lock. That the husband of Basamma is pre-deceased.
No document is adduced to show that whether the heirs of Basamma as per Sec.15 of Hindu Succession act are alive or not. Therefore, the following order.
ORDER
That for the aforementioned reasons it is hereby ordered that the petitioner herein shall take steps as against heirs, as per Sec.15 of Hindu Succession Act, if any, of Basamma. For same by 16.07.2025.”
The history of
Probate proceedings require compliance with notice provisions under Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act; failure to notify potential heirs vitiates probate grants.
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....
The High Court's jurisdiction to grant probate is limited to cases where properties are outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, and citation under Section 283(3) is unnecessary if....
Probate application requirements were misinterpreted; beneficiaries do not need to be notified when probate is sought by an executor in their interest.
In probate proceedings, a third party with a tangible interest may be permitted to join, as long as it does not prejudice existing parties, emphasizing the court's limited jurisdiction to the authent....
(1) Rights under Will by an executor or legatee cannot be established unless probate or letters of administration are obtained.(2) Everybody cannot lodge caveat – Caveator must have some interest in ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
