A sole legal heir, once established, acts as an absolute owner of the inherited estate rather than as an administrator, and is therefore not subject to Section 307 restrictions requiring court permission for the disposal of immovable property in the absence of competing claims or outstanding debts.

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 299 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2023 PASSED IN P AND S.C.NO.57/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-42 PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 278 R/W SECTION 290 AND 307 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner assailing the order dated 27.09.2023 in P & S.C. 57/2023 on the file of XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, CCH 42, (‘the trial Court’ for short) whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 278 read with 290 and 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘ISA Act’ for short) came to be allowed in part by issuing letters of administration in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner’s prayer for declaration and permission to dispose of the suit schedule property came to be dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The appellant is the daughter and claims to be the sole legal heir of late Doraswamy Krishnan and late Sushila Krishnan. The father of the petitioner passed away on 22.12.2013 and the mother died intestate on 08.05.2022. During the lifetime, the parents had jointly purchased an apartment bearing number II C in ‘Wood Creek Terraces’ under a registered sale deed dated 16.09.1991. Subsequently, the father executed a registered Will dated 25.10.2000 bequeathing the property in favour of his wife, Sushila Krishnan who, upon his demise became the absolute owner and continued to pay taxes. After the death of the mother inte state, the appellant being the only class I legal heir, inherited the property. The appellant who is residing in Mumbai, found it difficult to administer the property and intended to dispose of the same, however the prospective purchaser insisted on production of letter of administration which necessitated filing of a petition under the ISA Act before the trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is the undisputed sole legal heir of the deceased parents and has succeeded to the estate by operation of law under the Hindu Succession Act. It is contended that there are no rival claims to the property and that public citation was issued in a newspaper, yet no objections were received. The learned counsel further contends that the appellant and her mother have been regularly paying taxes in respect of the property, thereby evidencing lawful possession and enjoyment. It is urged that in the absence of any contest and in view of the uncontroverted documentary evidence, the trial Court ought to have granted a relief of declaration and letters of administration in full. The denial/partial grant of relief is contended to be contrary to law, evidence and settled principles governing succession.

4. The trial Court upon consideration of the material on record recorded a finding that the petitioner has proved that late Sushila Krishnan died inte state and that the petitioner is a legal heir. However, while answering the issues the Court held that the entitlement of the petitioner only partly in the affirmative, thereby granting the relief in part and not in entirety. The trial Court thus did not fully accede to the prayer for comprehensive relief, including complete authority to administer and dispose of the property. The trial Court recognized the petitioner as the sole legal heir establishing leg