IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104413 OF 2025 (ISA)

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI PRASAD S/O ACHYAUTRAO PATIL, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. NARTAKI PRIDE APARTMENT, NEW GOODS SHED ROAD, BELAGAVI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590 001.

2. SHRI. SHAILENDRA S/O ACHYAUTRAO PATIL, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. H.NO. 8-43/8/M, BALAJI HILLA COLONY, BODUPPAL, RANGAREDDY, TQ. AND DIST. RANGAREDDY-500 039, STATE: TELANGANA.

… APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SONU SUHEL N., SRI. PRAVEEN MUKKUND, ADVOCATES)

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH AND:

COURT OF KARNATAKA D BE H N A C R H WAD NIL … RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 299 AND 384 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT 1925, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI IN P AND SC NO.57/2024 DATED 21.03.2025 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED FOR PROBATE OF DECEASED PRABHA D/O. NARAYANRAO KABBUR @ NAIK IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.02.2026, THIS DAY, B. MURALIDHARA PAI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

1. The Appellants filed petition in P&SC No.57/2024 before the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking probate of the Will dated 05.01.2023 purportedly executed by Ms. Prabha, daughter of Sri Narayan Rao Kabbur @ Naik. The trial court dismissed the petition vide its impugned order dated 21.03.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellants have preferred this appeal.

2. Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned Counsel for Smt.

Sonu Suhel N., and Sri Praveen Mukkund, Advocates for the Appellants, vehemently contended that the trial court grossly erred in rejecting the petition without duly considering the Will executed in the Appellants' favour. They submitted that the court wrongly held that the deceased's share had not been finalized.

Further, the impugned order occasions a miscarriage of justice, as the trial court dismissed the petition on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties without affording the Appellants an opportunity to implead them. In the circumstances, the learned Counsel urged that the impugned order is contrary to law and warrants interference by this Court.

3. The reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the petition are as under:

“11. On perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner. as per Ex.P8 the property extract which shows deceased along with others were joint owners of the property. But the share of deceased 1/5 as contended by the petitioners is not finalised. When the share of the deceased is not finalised then it is not appropriate to come to conclusion that, she is having 1/5 share in the suit properties. The petitioners contend that, after the death of her father, the deceased acquired 1/5 share in the properties scheduled A & B, but with respect to that aspect the petitioner not produced any material. Similarly, when the share of the deceased is not finalised and the property standing in the joint name of deceased and others, then naturally the other persons also necessary party to the proceedings. Because later on they cannot contain a different version.

12. In order to avoid complexity, it is better if the other person who are also joint owner of the property are to be made as party. Moreover one more aspect is that the petitioners contend that the deceased was unmarried. Under such circumstances when the petitioner not able to establish the absolute right of the deceased over the scheduled A & B properties then naturally petitioners are not entitle