- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41620 MFA No. 8442 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.8442 OF 2024 (ISA) BETWEEN: SMT.MANJULA H L D/O LATE H L LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY, W/O MR K B PARASHURAM, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 203/4, THIRD MAIN,FOURTH CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, HONGASANDRA, M BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 068. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RANGARAMU V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. PRAMOD H.L S/O LATE H L LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 2. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O LATE H L LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT *80 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 3/1-1, 3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN, BALAJI LAYOUT, HONGASANDRA, SLV PROVISION STORE, *Corrected as per court order dated 18.11.2025. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41620 MFA No. 8442 of 2024 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHWIN KUMAR H.,ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/S 299 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2024 PASSED IN P AND SC.NO.23/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 276 AND 278 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner questioning the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in P & SC.No.23/2024 by IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, thereby, the petition filed under Sections 276 and 278 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, is dismissed. 2. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that the appellant is the daughter of one late - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41620 MFA No. 8442 of 2024 H.L.Lakshminarayana Reddy and defendant No.1 is her brother. The said late H.L.Lakshminarayana Reddy died testament by executing the Will in favour of the appellant/petitioner dated 18.03.1991 with respect to item Nos.1 to 7 of schedule properties. It is stated that the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties by virtue of the said Will. Therefore, she has filed the petition for grant of probate and letters of administration. But the Probate Court has dismissed the petition on the reason that the appellant is the beneficiary of the Will, but not appointed the executor. Therefore, probate and letters of administration cannot be granted. Thus, dismissed the petition. 3. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the petitioner has preferred the appeal by raising various grounds in the regular appeal and argued in consonance with the grounds raised that, though under the Hindu Law grant of probate is not mandatory, but when the appellant has filed the petition for grant of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41620 MFA No. 8442 of 2024 probate and letters of administration and the appellant had examined the attesting witnesses by producing the original Will and execution of the Will is duly proved, therefore, the Probate Court ought to have granted probate and letters of administration even in favour of beneficiary of the Will as it is not only granted to the executors. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they have no objection to grant probate and letters of administration as prayed for as the appellant is the sister of defendant No.1 and daughter of defendant No.2. 5. Before the Probate Court the appellant has examined two attesting witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are sons of the attesting witnesses. Even P.W.2 and P.W.3 have deposed that their forefather have attested the Will and Ex.P.1 is the original Will. Therefore, as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act the legal requirement is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41620 MFA No. 8442 of 2024 complied with in proving the execution of the Will and there is no contra evidence in disproving the execution of the Will. Further the other documentary evidence prove the fact that late H.L.Lakshminarayana Reddy had acquired item Nos.1 to 7 of schedule properties as they are self acquired properties of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant has proved that late H.L.Lakshminarayana Reddy was the owner of item Nos.1 to 7 of schedule properties and accordingly, had executed the Will dated 18.03.1991. 6. When the appellant has produced the original Will and the said execution of the Will is proved by attesting witnesses and P.W.2 and P.W.3 had identified their father’s signature that they have put the signature on the Will when all the legal requirements are complied with and also there is no objection by the respondents to the petition as they have remained absent. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41620 MFA No. 8442 of 2024 7. Further the appellant is the natural daughter of the deceased late H.L.Lakshminarayana Reddy. Hence, there is no deviation in bequeathing the properties. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the Probate Court is not correct. The reasons assigned by the Probate court are that the appellant is not the executor, but the beneficiary. Hence, the Probate Court in not granting probate and letters of administration is not a correct approach under the Hindu Law and even the beneficiary can also obtain probate and letters of administration. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The order dated 26.11.2024 passed in P & SC.No.23/2024 by IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41620 MFA No. 8442 of 2024 iii. Issue probate and letters of administration to the appellant in respect of Will dated 18.03.1991 executed by late H.L.Lakshminarayana Reddy in respect of item Nos.1 to 7 of schedule properties. iv. No costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38