- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34477 MFA No. 1777 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1777 OF 2019 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2899 OF 2019 IN MFA No. 1777/2019 BETWEEN: SMT ADILAKSHMAMMA W/O MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A S APPENAHALLI, MEDIGESI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TLAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI VENKATARAYAPPA S/O THIMMAPPA DEAD BY LR 1(A) PARVATHAMMA, D/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT SANKAMPALAYAM, GOVINDAPURAM MANDEL, TALUK MANDAKASIRA, SRI SATYASAI DIST- 515291. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34477 MFA No. 1777 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2019 SMT ERAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA MAJOR 2. SMT PUTTAMMA W/O NAGAPPA D/O GOVINDAPPA MAJOR RESIDENT OF SANKAMMANA PALYA GOVINDAPURAM GROUP MADAKASIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT (THE APPELLANT IS TREATED AS LR OF DECEASED R2) 3. SMT MUDDARANGAMMA W/O CHIKKATHIMMAIAH MAJOR R/O SANKAMMANA PALYA GOVINDAPURAM GROUP, MADAKASIRA TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G S BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A); SRI. HARISH.H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 IS DECEASED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(I) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.1.19 PASSED ON I.A.NO.17 IN RA.115/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.17 FILED UNDER ORDER 22 RULE 4 R/W ORDER 22 RULE 10 OF CPC. IN MFA NO. 2899/2019 BETWEEN: SMT ADILAKSHMAMMA W/O MALLESHAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34477 MFA No. 1777 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A S APPENAHALLI, MEDIGESI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572 132 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY.,ADVOCATE) AND: MUDDARANGAMMA W/O CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT SANKAMMANA PALYA, GOVINDAPURAM GROUP, MADAKASIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572 132 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH.H.V., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(I) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2019, PASSED ON IA.NO.I, IN RA NO.122/2001, ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION IN IA.I FILED U/O.22 RULE 4 R/W. ORDER 22 RULE 10 OF CPC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34477 MFA No. 1777 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though these appeals are listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal. 2. M.F.A.No.1777/2019 and M.F.A.No.2899/2019 are filed challenging the order dated 03.01.2019 passed on I.A.No.17 and I.A.No.1 in R.A.Nos.115/2001 and 122/2001 respectively by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri, whereby the applications filed under Order XXII Rule 4 r/w. Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC came to be dismissed. 3. One Ademma W/o. Siddappa has filed suit for declaration and injunction. The said suit is partly decreed. Against that, the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.122/2001 and defendants have preferred R.A.No.115/2001. During pendency of the Regular Appeals, the plaintiff Ademma died. Therefore, the appellant herein has filed application under Order XXII - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34477 MFA No. 1777 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2019 Rule 4 read with Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC praying to implead the appellant herein as legal heir of deceased as class - I legal heir. The said applications filed in both the Regular Appeals are dismissed by the First Appellate Court on the reason that in the affidavit filed supporting the applications, the names of the attesting witness stated in the Will have not been mentioned. Therefore, doubted the Will itself and on this reason, dismissed the applications. Being aggrieved by it, these two instant appeals are filed. 4. Having considered the applications filed and the observations made by the First Appellate Court while dismissing the applications, the reason is that the impleading applicant now has not stated the names of attesting witnesses in the Will. The Will is subject matter in the suit for testing regarding its execution, but the observations made by the Trial Court are that in the affidavit filed in support of the applications, the names of the attesting witnesses have not been mentioned and doubting the Will is amounts to deciding the execution of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34477 MFA No. 1777 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2019 Will during considering the application for interim measures. This is not correct approach of the First Appellate Court. Whether they are attesting witnesses or not is the question before the First Appellate Court and by the trial to test the due execution of Will in the trial. Now, the impleading applicant desires to come on record in the appeals as only a legatee under the Will. 5. Just because the appellant being the impleading applicant, desires to come on record as a party and as a legatee under the Will, that does not amount to proving of Will; therefore, only for this limited purpose, the First Appellate Court ought to have allowed the applications permitting the appellant to come on record. Therefore, now it is made clear that the appellant, who is impleading applicant upon the applications filed only for the limited purpose, is permitted to come on record in the appeal as a legatee under the Will and to contest the suit. 6. It is made clear that just because the appellant comes on record that does not amount to proving of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34477 MFA No. 1777 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2019 Will. The proving of due execution of the Will is subject matter in the Regular Appeal and accordingly is a subject to be considered in the Regular Appeal on its own merits. 7. Therefore, with these observations, the appeals are liable to be allowed and the appellant is permitted to come on record in both the appeals. 8. All the contentions are left open. 9. Just because, the appellant is permitted to come on record as a legatee that cannot be construed that the execution of Will is proved. The First Appellate Court without being influenced on this order of permitting the appellant to come on record as a legatee, this Court considered the Will on its own merits. However, the First Appellate Court is directed to consider the genuinity and execution of the Will on its own merits as per law after receiving evidence on it. 10. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34477 MFA No. 1777 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2019 11. Considering the Regular Appeals are of the year 2001, therefore, the First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the Regular Appeals within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA,SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36