Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.
Meera M.R. – Petitioner
versus
Gangadhara – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8205 of 2024 (GM-CPC)
Decided on 23.10.2025
Counsel for the Paties:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Krishna Murthy T.R, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Mahesh S.B, Advocate Sri. Varadaraj P.N, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Impleadment in Probate case – A person, who claims interest adverse to interest of Testator cannot be allowed to come on record and oppose Will executed by Testator nor can such a person be considered as a person having caveatable interest.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 – Impleadment in Probate case – A person, who claims interest adverse to interest of Testator cannot be allowed to come on record and oppose Will executed by Testator nor can such a person be considered as a person having caveatable interest – It is not the case of respondent that he is a heir under succession who would be otherwise benefited if Will were to be invalidated – A caveator or objector in a probate proceedings should be able to demonstrate that claim made for grant of probate, prejudices his right because it defeats some other line of succession under which caveator/objector asserts his right over property which is subject matter of Will – Whether grant of probate or letter of administration would prejudice right of caveator/objector would be a parameter to consider whether caveator/objector is a party, who is required to be heard in probate proceedings. (Para 8)
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER (ORAL )
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 11.12.2023 passed on IA No.2 and order dated 02.02.2024 passed on IA No.4 in P & SC No.24/2021 by the Court of LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner herein had filed P & SC No.24/2021 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Benglauru with a prayer to grant Letter of Administration in respect of the Will executed by the Testator (Smt. Jayamma) on 19.02.2007. In the said proceedings, paper publication was issued and since no objectors had come forward, the Trial Court had proceeded to record the evidence on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner, she had examined herself as PW1 and another witness was examined as PW2. 14 documents were got marked on behalf of the petitioner as Exs.P1 to P14 and thereafter arguments were heard by the Trial Court and the matter was posted for orders. At that stage, IA No.2 was filed by the respondent herein under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to implead him as party respondent in P & SC No.24/2021. The application was opposed by the petitioner by filing statement of objections. The Trial Court vide the impugned order has allowed the said application on 11.12.2023. Subsequently, IA No.4 was filed by the petitioner under Section 152 of CPC with a prayer to make certain corrections in the order dated 11.12.2023. The said application was allowed on 02.02.2024. Assailing the aforesaid two orders, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition
submits that respondent claims to be tenant in respect of the property which is the subject
matter of the Will executed in favour of the
petitioner. Respondent has no right of inheritance over the said property. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in allowing the application.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the order impugned and submits that his claim before the jurisdictional Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights of the land in dispute under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, is pending consideration. In the event, the prayer made in P & SC No.24/2021 is allowed, petitioner may alienate the property.
6. Petitioner herein, who claims to be the daughter-inlaw of deceased Smt. Jayamma has contended in her petition in P & SC No.24/2021 that item No.1 of the petition schedule property belonged to her father-in-law late Sri. H.G. Shammanna and after his death, the said property bearing Sy.No.13/2 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas was transferred to the name of her mother-in-law and the revenue entries in respect of the said lands were also transferred in her name. Item No.2 of the petition schedule premises was allotted to the share of Smt. Jayamma under a partition decree in OS No.253/1998 and during the life time of Smt. Jayamma, she had executed a Will in respect of the petition schedule properties in favour of the petitioner on 19.02.2007. According to the respondent, he has filed Form No.7A under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, claiming occupancy rights of item No.1 of the petition schedule property bearing Sy.No.13/2 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas and his claim is pending consideration. Undisputedly, he does not claim any independent right over any of the petition schedule properties nor does he claim right over the petition schedule properties by way of inheritance. As a matter of fact, respondent is a person who has claimed occupancy rights of the petition schedule item No.1 property and therefore, claim of the petitioner is adverse to the interest of deceased testator.
7. The material produced on record would go to show that Smt. Jayamma had opposed the claim of the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights and the matter had reached this Court in WP No.37253/201
