- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27462 W.P. No.15213/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.15213/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SURESH S/O LATE D.R. PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.63, IST MAIN ROAD NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU-560020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K, ADV.,) AND: 1. P. JAYAPRAKASH S/O LATE D.R. PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.63, IST MAIN ROAD NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU-560020. 2. P. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE D.R. PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.63, IST MAIN ROAD NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. SRIRAM BABU, ADV., FOR R1 [ABSENT] R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN P AND SC NO.78/2016 DTD.30.8.2018 ON Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27462 W.P. No.15213/2021 THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY (CCH-12) VIDE ANNEXURE-D & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.08.2018 passed in P & SC.No.78/2016 by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-12) (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.Srinivasa K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 herein has filed a petition seeking grant of probate in his favour based on the Will dated 24.10.1991 alleged to have been executed by the deceased Sri.D.R.Puttanna in respect of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the petitioner was respondent No.2 in the said proceedings, has entered appearance and filed objections opposing the proceedings on the ground that the alleged Will of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27462 W.P. No.15213/2021 Sri.D.R.Puttanna is forged and concocted, therefore, sought conversion of the said proceedings into a suit, which came to be rejected by trial Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Miss Pressy Pinto v. Mr. Rony Maxim Pinto and Others1. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. There is no representation for the respondents. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent No.1 herein filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking grant of probate in his favour based on the Will dated 24.10.1991, alleged to have been executed by his father, Sri.D.R.Puttanna, in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said proceedings, the petitioner herein entered appearance and filed objections 1 2010 (1) KCCR 536 (DB) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27462 W.P. No.15213/2021 contending that the proceedings under Section 276 of the Act cannot be proceeded as the petitioner is denying the execution of the Will by the deceased Sri.D.R.Puttana in favour of respondent No.1 herein. The specific objection of the petitioner before the trial Court is that the alleged Will is created and forged to knock out the properties of his father. When such assertion is made, it is the duty of the trial Court to convert the miscellaneous proceedings into a suit as provided under Section 295 of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Miss Pressy Pinto referred supra considered the effect of Section 295 of the Act and held that the trial Court is required to convert the said proceedings into suit by treating the petitioner as a plaintiff and others as defendants by assigning original suit number. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the objections of the petitioner to treat the said proceedings into original suit. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27462 W.P. No.15213/2021 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 30.08.2018 passed in P & SC.No.78/2016 by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-12) is hereby set aside. iii. The trial Court shall convert the said proceedings into original suit and continue with the proceedings in accordance with law. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30