IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2356 OF 2025 (ISA)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI K.V. NAGARAJA S/O.LATE. KANCHIVENKATACHALAPATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.25/1, A STREET, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, NEW GUDDADAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 026. 2. SRI. DEEPAK. C. C.

S/O CHANDRASHEKAR.C.V.

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 16/4, M.N. KRISHNA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, Digitally BENGALURU – 560 004 signed by RAMYA D 3. SMT. USHA RANI Location: W/O NAGARAJ HIGH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS COURT OF R/AT NO. 25/1, A STREET, KARNATAKA

1^ST MAIN ROAD, NEW GUDDADAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 026 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VENKATESHA T S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

NIL (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED

02.07.2025)

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 299 INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2024 PASSED IN P AND S.C.NO.31/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 276 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925. BARRED BY TIME.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the petitioners in P and SC No.31/2024 challenging the order dated 26.11.2024 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura¹, thereby, the petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Probate Court’ for short

3. The petitioners (appellants herein) have filed petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short ‘the IS Act, 1925) for grant of probate and succession certificate in respect of Will dated 05.05.2023 executed by Smt. K.B. Suguna W/o. K.V. Balakrishna, in respect of the suit schedule properties.

4. It is the case of the appellants that appellant No.1 is the brother-in-law of the testator-K.B. Suguna. The testator-K.B. Suguna and her husband K.V. Balakrishna have no issues. The immovable properties were given to K.V. Balakrishna by his father. K.V. Balakrishna predeceased to K.B. Suguna. Since K.B. Suguna had no issues therefore, she executed the Will dated 05.05.2023 bequeathing the suit schedule properties and also gifted some movable properties to appellant Nos.2 and 3, who are none other than son-in-law of appellant No.1 and wife of appellant No.1 respectively.

5. Initially, when the suit is filed, there were no respondents. Upon the paper publication issued as citation and in the Will dated 05.05.2023, the names of appellant Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned; therefore, appellant Nos.2 and 3 were made as respondents in the probate petition. It is the case of the appellants that there is no conflict of interest between appellant No.1 on one side and appellant Nos.2 and 3 on the other side.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant Nos.2 and 3, who were made as respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the probate petition ought to have been arrayed as petitioners in the probate petition before the Probate Court, but they were wrongly arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the probate petition. It is further submitted that in this appeal, appellant Nos.2 and 3 were initially made as respondent Nos.1 and 2, but later, upon the application filed for transposition, this Court on 02.07.2025 ordered for transposition of respondent Nos.1 and 2 as appellant Nos.2 and 3 as there is no conflict of interest between them.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the testator-K.B. Suguna and her husband K.V. Balakrishna had no issues. K.V. Balakrishna, the husband of testator-K.B. Suguna and he had acquired schedule immovable properties through his father. Appellant No.1 is the younger brother of said K.V. Balakrishna. The father of appella