Judicial abuse is impermissible; improper conduct harming integrity results in costs.

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition filed by the petitioner herein demonstrates blatant misuse of the writ jurisdiction by the petitioner, who has lost his battle in a properly instituted suit bearing O.S.No.787/2005 which is confirmed by this Court in RSA.No.831/2023 .

2. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The subject matter of the petition is agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.39/1, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and Sy.No.39/2, measuring 30 guntas, situated at Atturu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North taluk. The present petitioner is tracing title through his grandfather Muthurayappa. Questioning the alienations in favour of private respondents No.4 to 8, the present petitioner herein, along with his siblings, namely, M.Ramaiah and A.N.Nagarathnamma, filed a comprehensive suit questioning the alienations and accordingly sought a relief of declaration declaring the present petitioner and his siblings as absolute owners in possession of the petition lands and further sought a specific declaration to declare the transaction obtained by the defendants as null and void. The sale deed of 1996 was also challenged in the said suit.

3. The private respondents No.4 to 8, on receipt of summons, invoked the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a)(b) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC and sought rejection of the plaint. The application was strongly resisted by the present petitioner and his siblings.

4. The Trial Court, referring to the pleadings in the plaint in O.S.No.787/2005 , dismissed the suit vide order dated 05.09.2022, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.111/2022.

5. The petitioner, along with his siblings, filed a regular second appeal in RSA.No.831/2023 . This Court, vide judgment and decree dated 08.12.2023, dismissed the second appeal.

6. It is significant to note that this Court had already decided the regular second appeal on 08.12.2023. However, during the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner, who had previously obtained a probate order from the probate court in 2022, failed to disclose this critical fact before this Court. The probate was granted based on an unregistered will alleged to have been executed by the petitioner’s grandfather, Muthurayappa.

This deliberate non-disclosure by the petitioner raises serious concerns about the bona fides of his actions.

7. During the pendency of the regular second appeal, the petitioner initiated proceedings in Probate and Succession Case No. 14/2020 before the competent court. In this petition, the petitioner asserted that his grandfather, Muthurayappa, had executed an unregistered will dated 05.01.1992, through which he purportedly bequeathed the disputed properties to the petitioner. Strikingly, the petitioner chose to implead only his siblings as respondents in the probate proceedings, thereby excluding other interested parties who could have contested the matter. Acting on the petition filed under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act , the probate court granted the petitioner a probate certificate through its order dated 30.08.2021.

8. Armed with the probate certificate obtained from the probate court, the petitioner sought to leverage the order despite this Court having already rendered a judgment in the regular second appeal, which upheld the alienations made by the petitioner's grandfather in favor of private respondents Nos. 4 to 8. Subsequently, the petitioner approached respondent No. 3, the Tahsildar, by filing an application alleging inaction in giving effect to the probate order. When