This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated

21.04.2021 passed in P & SC No.5002/2020 by the II Addl.District

and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, sitting at Kanakapura, whereby

the petition filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act by

the respondent seeking grant of probate in respect of the registered

Will dated 06.06.2019 said to have been executed by

Smt.Ningamma @ Savithramma in his favour was allowed by the

trial court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the respondent filed

the aforesaid petition seeking grant of probate in respect of the suit

schedule property and for other reliefs. In the petition, it was

specifically asserted by the respondent that he was the son and

only heir / legal representative of the testatrix Smt.Ningamma, who

expired on 03.12.2019 and that he acquired the schedule property

by virtue of the registered Will dated 06.06.2019 said to have been

executed by her in his favour. He also contended that apart from

him, the said Smt.Ningamma did not leave behind any other heirs /

- 3 -

legal representatives. In order to prove and establish the Will, the

respondent examined himself as PW-1 and attesting witnesses as

PWs 2 and 3 and the scribe as PW-4, pursuant to which, the trial

court came to the conclusion that the respondent had successfully

proved the due execution, genuineness and validity of the alleged

Will dated 06.06.2019 said to have been executed by

Smt.Ningamma in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian

Evidence Act r/w Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Under

these circumstances, the trial court proceeded to pass the

impugned order allowing the petition which is assailed by the

appellant in the present appeal.

4. A perusal of the grounds and contentions urged by the

appellant in the present appeal discloses that it is the specific

contention that Smt.Ningamma - the testatrix was the daughter of

one Byregowda, who originally owned and possessed the schedule

property and that the appellant was the adopted son of Byregowda

and was consequently, he was entitled to the schedule property.

5. In this context, it is relevant to note that the scope and

ambit of proceedings for grant of probate are restricted and limited

to proof of the Will and in probate proceedings, the questions /

- 4 -

issues regarding the title of the testatrix or anybody else over the

schedule property are neither germane nor relevant and the same

are beyond the scope and jurisdiction of all probate proceedings. In

this context, it is relevant to note that it is an undisputed fact that

the appellant herein does not claim to be a legate under the Will

dated 06.06.2019 said to have been executed by Smt.Ningamma

and on the other hand, appellant claims to be the adopted son of

Byregowda, father of Smt.Ningamma, which contention is seriously

disputed by the respondent, who is the son of Smt.Ningamma.

6. Under these circumstances without expressing any

opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions as regards

the right, title, interest and possession of the said Smt.Ningamma

over the schedule property and her competency to execute the

alleged Will, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this appeal

without interfering with the impugned order and by reserving liberty

in favour of the appellant to take recourse to such remedies as

available in law including approaching the trial court seeking

redressal of his grievances in accordance with law. All rival

contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the

same.

- 5 -

7. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed

of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Srl.