- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5407 MFA No. 611 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 611 OF 2025 (ISA) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA N., AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE NAGAPPA REDDY, R/AT NO 664, WARD NO. 03, BHARATH NAGAR, CHIKKABALLAPURA ROAD, VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 135. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA H. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MANJULA H., AGE 45 YEARS, W/O LATE D. S. MANJUNATH, R/AT DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN- 562 135. 2. KUMARI GANAVI M. GOWDA AGED 7 YEARS, D/O. LATE D. S. MANJUANTH, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. MANJULA H., R/AT DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5407 MFA No. 611 of 2025 DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135. …RESPONDENTS (V/O. DATED 06.02.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S 384 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2024 PASSED IN MISC.NO.15001/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 383(b) OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT IS TREATED AS A PETITION UNDER SECTION 264 OF SAID ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for setting aside the order passed by Sessions Judge in Misc.No.15001/2024 dated 11.11.2024 for having allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 264 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and set aside the order in P & SC No.15020/2022 for having issued the certificate in favour of the appellant. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5407 MFA No. 611 of 2025 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. 3. The case of the appellant before the District Court is that the appellant said to be beneficiary under the Will executed by Narayanamma in favour of the appellant and after the death of Narayanamma for the purpose of mutating the revenue records, the appellant filed a petition in P & SC No.15020/2022 under Sections 276 and 278 of the Act for issuing the probate and succession certificate by showing the respondent as NIL. After considering the evidence on record, the District judge allowed the petition and ordered to issue probate and succession certificate vide order dated 19.06.2023. 4. Subsequently, the respondents herein are the daughter-in-law and grand daughter of Narayanamma, the executor of the 'Will' have moved a petition before the same Court under Section 264 of the Act for setting aside the same on the ground mentioned under Section 263 of the Act. Notice was ordered to this appellant to appear. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5407 MFA No. 611 of 2025 Respondents appeared through counsel and filed their objections. Subsequently, respondent No.1 examined as Pw.1 and got marked some documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. But this appellant failed to cross examine the witness and also not lead any evidence. Therefore, the District judge vide impugned order dated 11.11.2024 set aside the order of allowing the petition in P & SC No.15020/2022 under Sections 276 and 278 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court. 6. Having heard the arguments and perusal of the records shows that the appellant while filing the P & SC petition not made any persons as respondents in the original petition P & SC No.15020/2022. The appellant said to be the brother of the executor of Will Narayanamma, whereas the respondents are said to be the daughter-in- law and grand daughter of Narayanamma. But they are not made as party in the District Court, however, obtained the certificate by showing the respondent as NIL. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5407 MFA No. 611 of 2025 Subsequently, Narayanamma's daughter-in-law and grand daughter moved the application under Section 264 of the Act and got set aside the order. Though the District judge set aside the order by revocation of issuing the order of probate and succession certificate, but the trial Court not considered that once the objection raised by some other person or any relative of executor of the Will, the Court required to take the applicants/petitioners filed under Section 264 of the Act as respondents and the petition should be converted in to a original suit and should allow the parties to contest the matter and judgments should be delivered on merits of the case by hearing both the sides. Such being the case, merely setting aside the order will not serve any purpose. The District judge has to permit these respondents to come as respondents in P & SC and thereafter should pass an order for converting the P & SC petition in to a original suit. Therefore, if the notice is issued to the respondents and once again the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for contesting the miscellaneous case would leads to multiplicity of work and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5407 MFA No. 611 of 2025 delay in process. Therefore, the order of the trial Court for the limited persons required to be interfered by this Court. 7. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The order of the trial Court for setting aside the order for issuing the certificate is hereby confirmed. However, the trial Court is directed to restore the P & SC No.15020/2022 and allow these respondents i.e., Smt.Manjula.H and Kumari Ganavi.M.Gowda as respondents and permit to convert the P & SC petition in to original suit and assign new number and allow the parties to contest the matter and dispose the suit on merits. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE NS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14