- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21434 W.P. No.32025/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.32025/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. CHARLES MIRANDA S/O LATE LADROSE MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT. JANATHA COLONY PUDU 574143 BANTWAL TALUK, (DK). 2. WILLIAM MIRANDA S/O LATE LADROSE MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT PELAPPADI HOUSE PUDU VILLAGE, P.O. PUDU 574143 BANTWAL TALUK, (DK). …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M. SUDHAKAR PAI, ADV.,) AND: 1. MRS. CRISTINE MIRANDA W/O LATE LADROSE MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS (NOW DEAD). 2. SEBASTIAN MIRANDA S/O LATE LADROSE MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 3. MARCEL MIRANDA S/O LATE LADROSE MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 4. MR. DENNIS D'SOUZA S/O LATE LADROSE MIRANDA Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21434 W.P. No.32025/2019 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. RESPONDENTS (2) TO (4) ARE ALL R/AT PELAPPADI HOUSE PUDU VILLAGE, P.O. PUDU 574143 BANTWAL TALUK, (DK). 5. MRS. LILLY MIRANDA W/O VALERIAN D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT AYERA HOUSE P.O. MODANKAPU 574219 BANTWAL TALUK, (DK). 6. MRS. CARMINE CUTINHO W/O ALLWYN CUTINHO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT PANDIL HOUSE P.O. AMMUNJE 574219 BANTWAL TALUK, (DK). 7. SMT. LUCY MIRANDA D/O LATE LADROSE MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS ST. CHARLES CONVENT XAVIER PRIMARY SCHOOL SURVEY NO.65, TAKODAGAON ROAD GEORAI 431127(MAHARASHTRA). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADV., FOR R2, R3, R5 & R6 R4 & R7 SERVED PETITIONERS AND R2 TO R7 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R1 V.C.O.27.05.2024) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION FO INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 22.06.2019 ON I.A.NO.IV IN OS.NO.151/2012, ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL (D.K.) VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21434 W.P. No.32025/2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "a) Issue a Writ of certiorari, to quash the order dated 22.06.2019 on I.A.No.IV in O.S.No.151/2012, on the file of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal (D.K), [vide Annexure-G to the Writ Petition]; b) Issue any other Writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant, under the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Sri.M.Sudhakar Pai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the one Philomina Miranda filed O.S.No.151/2012 seeking relief of declaration that the alleged sale deed dated 14.02.1992 registered in favour of defendant No.4 by the mother of the plaintiff is null and void and for consequential relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the petitioners are defendant Nos.1 and 5. It is submitted that during the pendency of the said suit the plaintiff died on 18.06.2012. It is further submitted - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21434 W.P. No.32025/2019 that the plaintiff has executed a Will dated 16.05.2012 in favour of defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6 and they being the legatees under the said Will, filed an application in IA.No.4 seeking transposition themselves as the plaintiffs in the suit. However, the trial Court rejected the said application by recording incorrect finding that the Will does not bear the signature of the plaintiff and the Will is dated 16.05.2012 and the trial Court observed that the same is notarized on 03.07.2012 which is after the death of the plaintiff which is factually incorrect, as it is evident from the document produced at Annexure-D of the petition. It is submitted that the petitioners being the legatees under the Will have succeeded to the estate of the plaintiff. Hence, they are required to be transposed as plaintiffs in the suit. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 submits that the alleged Will dated 16.05.2012 is seriously disputed by the contesting respondents. It is submitted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21434 W.P. No.32025/2019 that whether the petitioners are the legatees and the correctness of the Will is required to be gone into by the Court in appropriate case and without doing so, the petitioners based on the said Will cannot claim that they are the successors of the estate and seek transposition as the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the petitioners have not filed written statement in the suit and if they would have filed the written statement and raised objections with regard to the execution of the sale deed dated 14.02.1992, then the Court would have considered the prayer for transposition. In the absence of any such attempt by the petitioners', mere seeking transposition as the plaintiffs after the death of the original plaintiff who has died issueless, cannot seek transposition. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21434 W.P. No.32025/2019 respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The undisputed facts between the parties are that one Philomina Miranda filed O.S.151/2012 seeking following reliefs: "(a) For a declaration that the alleged Sale Deed dated 14-2-1992 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar Bantwal in favour of defendant No.5 as null and void and for a consequential relief of partition and physical division of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares by metes and bounds with reference to good and bad soil and make over ½ share in the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. (b) Direct the defendant No.5 to pay Rs.750 to the plaintiff towards the charges of the registered legal notice dated 13-3-2012. (c) To grant cost of this suit. (d) Grant such other and further reliefs, as the court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case." It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has died on 18.06.2012 issueless. It is claimed that the plaintiff has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21434 W.P. No.32025/2019 executed notarized Will dated 16.05.2012 and the petitioners are the beneficiaries under the said Will. Based on the said Will, the petitioners and respondent No.4 filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1A and Order 1 Rule 10(6) r/w Section 151 of the CPC seeking for transposition of themselves as plaintiffs. The trial Court considering the rival contentions, incorrectly recorded the finding at paragraph No.9 that the Will does not bear the signature of the plaintiff and the said Will is notarized after the death of the plaintiff which is factually incorrect and the said Will is produced at Annexure-D in the petition. However, the trial Court further recorded a finding that the plaintiff had not acquired any title over the suit schedule property, such being the case, question of plaintiff bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioners through the Will does not arise. However, the said finding is only to the extent of consideration of the application filed by the petitioners. In my considered view, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application, as unless the alleged Will - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21434 W.P. No.32025/2019 dated 16.05.2012 is proved before a competent Court, the petitioners cannot claim any right over the same. It is made clear that the finding recorded by the trial Court or this Court will not come in the way of the petitioners independently claiming their rights under the Will before an appropriate forum. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29