- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4067 MFA No. 1578 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1578 OF 2023 (ISA-) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SUJATHA ANIL KUMAR W/O SRI. ANIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.291B, VIDAYAPEETA MAIN ROAD, OPP. CKA BUS STAND, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 2. SMT. K. P. BHAGEERATHY W/O M. SEETHUMADHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT "BHAGYASHREE", NEMMARA ROAD, TRIPALUR PUDIYANKAM, PALLAKAD - 678 545. REPRESENTED BY HER P.A.HOLDER, MRS. SUJATHA ANIL KUMAR 3. MRS. VENI MENON D/O LAE APPUKUTTA VARMA @ APPUKUTTACHAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, BLOCK A20, GULAHAR GARDEN, SURYANAGAR UPPAL, K.V.RANGAREDDY MALLAPUR, TELENGANA - 500 076. Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4067 MFA No. 1578 of 2023 REPRESENTED BY HER P.A.HOLDER MRS. SUJATHA ANIL KUMAR. 4. MRS. PRAVEENA RAGHAVAN W/O M.P.RAGHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT "MEERA SADAN", KAILASHNAGAR, KODUVAYUR, PALLAKAD - 678 501. REPRESENTED BY HER P.A.HOLDER MRS. SUJATHA ANIL KUMAR, 5. MR. K.P. BALACHANDRAN S/O LATE APPUKUTTA VARAMA @ APPUKUTTACHAN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARSM R/AT NO.116-B, G, RAADIANT JASMINE APARTMENT, 26/2, SHIVAANAHALLY, JAKKUR ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064, 6. MR. BALAMURALI K.P, S/O LATE APPUKUTTA VARAMA @ APPUKUTTACHAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARSM R/AT NO."APARNA", OPP.MARIAN COLLAGE, KODUVAYUR, SHIVAANAHALLY, JAKKUR ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 501. REPRESENTED BY HER P. A. HOLDER- MRS. SUJATHA ANIL KUMAR. 7. SMT. CHANDRAMOHINI V.N. W/O LATE BHANU PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4067 MFA No. 1578 of 2023 8. SRI. JAYAPRAKASH V.N. S/O LATE BHANU PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 9. SRI. RAVISHANKAR VARMA V.N. S/O LATE BHANU PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 10. SMT. RADHIKA VARMA D/O LATE BHANU PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ABOVE NAMED 7 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT "RADHIKA" KAILAS NAGAR, KODUVAYUR, P.O. KODUVAYOOR, PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678 501. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. K. NETHRAVATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NIL …RESPONDENT (NIL) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 384 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:11.08.2020 PASSED IN P AND SC.NO.536/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. CCH-18, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4067 MFA No. 1578 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for setting aside the order dated 11.08.2020 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in P and SC No.536/2019 for dismissing the application filed by the 1st appellant herein. 2. Previously, the 1st appellant was the petitioner and other respondents were the respondents before the trial court. Subsequent to passing of the order dated 18.07.2024, respondent Nos.1 to 5 were transposed as appellant Nos.2 to 6 and the legal hairs of one Bhanu Prakash, who had not appeared before the trial court, have been made as appellant Nos.7 to 10 in this appeal. 3. Notice issued to respondents is dispensed with since the respondents are transposed as appellants. 4. The case of the petitioner before the trial court is that the sister of the petitioner No.1 was Mrs. Sobhana - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4067 MFA No. 1578 of 2023 Setumadavan and the said Sobhana Setumadavan expired on 15.10.2018 at 1.00 a.m. due to cardiac arrest. Mr. Setumadavan, who was the husband of Sobhana Setumadavan, had predeceased her and died on 21.01.2017. Setumadavan and Shobana Setumadavan had no issues. The mother of Setumadavan also died long back. There is no sibling to Setumadhavan and also no class I or class II heirs. The deceased Setumadavan was working in BEML, Bengaluru and retired long back. After the marriage, the deceased Shobana and applicant Nos.1 to 6, who were the sisters of Shobana, lived together, and after the death of her husband, Sobhana was lived with her brother in Kerala. The deceased Shobana was having movable assets i.e. fixed deposits and saving bank accounts in post office as well as in other banks. She was also having FD in Post Office under Senior Citizen Scheme. After the death of Shobana, the petitioner No.1 requested the authorities to release the amount. The authorities insisted the petitioner to bring succession certificate. Hence, the petitioner approached the District Judge by filing an petition under Section 372 of the Act and the petition came to be dismissed. Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4067 MFA No. 1578 of 2023 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the records. 6. It is not in dispute that Sobhana, said to be the sister of the appellant Nos.1 to 6, had married to Setumadavan, who predeceased Sobhana. Sobhana also died on 15.10.2018 leaving behind no legal heirs. The appellants are class-II heirs of Sobhana. Setumadavan, the husband of Sobhana, was said to be having one mother and she also died long back and there is no sibling to the said Setumadavan. Therefore, the appellant was the legal representative of Sobhana and public notice was issued through paper publication and no one objected the same, except appellant Nos.2 to 6 who appeared and not filed any objection. Accordingly, the first appellant was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. P.W.2 is also examined. Respondent No.4 has been examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 are marked. After hearing the arguments, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court. 7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for appellants has produced two documents especially, the legal heir certificate issued by Tahsildar, Chittoor pallakad and the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4067 MFA No. 1578 of 2023 relationship certificate issued by the said Tahsildar, and contended that these two documents were not produced before the trial Court and if the said documents were produced before the trial Court, it could have passed the order in favour of the appellants. 8. On perusal of the impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the appellants were not able to produce the legal representative certificate to show that they were the siblings of Sobhana. Also no relationship certificate was produced to say that Sobhana is one of the sisters of appellant No.1. The petitioner before the trial Court also not produced any document to show that appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein, who are the legal heirs of Bhanu Prakash, the brother of deceased Shobhana, are related to the deceased Sobhana. 9. It is seen from the records that the parties are from Kerala and a gazette notification was issued on 15.03.2022 from Palakkad district, Kerala. These two documents show that the appellants are the legal hairs of deceased Sobhana Setumadavan and they are the legal hairs of the deceased - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4067 MFA No. 1578 of 2023 Sobhana. The husband of Sobhana also died and there is no legal heirs to Setumadavan. Therefore, there is no reason for this Court to refuse the appellants as the legal heirs of the deceased Sobhana Setumadavan, as the respondents are transposed themselves as appellants. Therefore, there is no hurdle to pass the order and issue succession certificate in favour of the appellants. Though the trial Court has dismissed the application rightly stating that no relationship certificate or legal heir certificate was produced, but the same are produced before this Court and the same are taken on record. 10. In the light of the above, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 11.08.2020 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in P and SC No.536/2019, is hereby set aside. The petition filed by the appellants is allowed. 11. Office to issue probate and succession certificate in favour of the appellants. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT:SK