- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6951 WP No. 115270 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.115270 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. BASAMMA W/O. VENKANAGOUDA JADIYAPPAGOUDRA, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BINAKANADONI, TAL: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587118. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRANAV BADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANKARAPPA BASALINGAPPA METI AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HALLUR, TAL: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT-587118. 2. SHARANAPPAGOUDA BHIMANAGOUDA BELAKI AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BINAKANDONI, TAL: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587118. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR G.RAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.10.2019 ON I.A.NO.17 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNGUND, IN O.S.NO.35/2006, A COPY OF WHICH IS MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.05.02 13:14:08 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6951 WP No. 115270 of 2019 PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND ALLOW THE I.A.NO.17 PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO CARRY OUT CORRECTIONS AS MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION AND ETC. THIS WIRT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by plaintiff in O.S.No.35/2006 assailing the order of the learned Judge passed on I.A.No.17, wherein the present petitioner's application filed under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act seeking leave of the Court to rectify the survey number in the unregistered Will dated 26.4.2004 vide Ex.D9 is declined by the trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The present petitioner and respondents both have filed independent suits seeking relief of declaration based on two separate Wills. The present petitioner is seeking declaration of title and ownership based on unregistered Will dated 26.04.2004, which is marked at - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6951 WP No. 115270 of 2019 Ex.D9. This application is filed by the present petitioner having noticed that survey numbers are wrongly typed in the Will covered under Ex.D9. The said application is rejected by the trial Judge. 4. This Court, upon careful consideration of the submissions and the impugned order, is of the considered view that the learned Judge was justified in declining the prayer for amendment of the Will. It is a well-settled principle in law that a testamentary document, being the expression of the testator's final wishes, is not susceptible to amendment post-execution, save by way of a codicil duly executed in accordance with law. The law does not contemplate or permit a third party, including a legatee or beneficiary, to seek judicial amendment of the contents of a Will. Such a course would amount to rewriting the Will, which is impermissible and contrary to the principles governing testamentary succession. 5. The present petitioner, therefore, could not have maintained an application seeking amendment of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6951 WP No. 115270 of 2019 Will in question. However, this does not preclude the petitioner from demonstrating during the course of trial that the property mentioned in the Will, although mistakenly described, particularly with respect to survey numbers is indeed identifiable and traceable to the correct property by reference to authenticated revenue records. If there exists a clerical or typographical error in the description of the property, particularly in the survey number, it is always open to the petitioner to offer an explanation in that regard, supported by documentary evidence, including revenue records and other relevant material. 6. In light of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the order under challenge, and the writ petition does not warrant interference. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to establish, in accordance with law and during the course of trial, the genuineness of the Will as well as the precise identity of the property covered under - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6951 WP No. 115270 of 2019 the Will, marked as Ex.D9. Subject to the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB/- Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0