- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010810372025 NC: 2026:KHC:36197 MFA No. 9443 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9443 OF 2025 (ISA) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. ANNAPURANA WIFE OF MR. H. M. NAGARAJAIAH, DAUGHTER OF LATE MR. C VEERBHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING NO. NO. 208, 2ND BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, 3RD D CROSS, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, NEAR SHANBOGH NURSING HOME, BENGALURU-560079. 2. MRS. VIMALA BASAVARAJU, WIFE OF DR.BASAVARAJU, DAUGHTER OF LATE MR.C. VEERABHDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 24, HIG, KHB COLONY, 2ND STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560079. 3. MRS. VISHALA CHANDRASHEKHAR WIFE OF DR.CHANDRASHEKHAR DAUGTHER OF LATE C VEERBHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 30/41, 15TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, PADMANABHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070. 4. MRS. RENU LOKESH WIFE OF MR. B.S. LOKESHAIAH DAUGHTER OF LATE MR. C. VEERABHDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010810372025 NC: 2026:KHC:36197 MFA No. 9443 of 2025 RESIDING AT 271, 1ST MAIN, 9TH CROSS, 9TH BLOCK, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560072. 5. MRS. SHANTHASUDHIR, WIFE OF SUDHIR B.S DAUGHTER OF LATE MR. C. VEERABHDRAIAH AGED 64 YEARS RESIDING AT KUMBARAHALLI ESTATE AND POST, VIA YESLUR, SAKESHPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-573134. 6. MRS.CHANDINI R. UDAY, DAUGHTER OF LATE C. VEERABHADRAIAH WIFE OF MR. RAJA UDAYSHANKAR, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT 457, 9TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011. 7. MS.ESHA VISHWANANTH DAUGHTER OF LATE MR. C.V VISHWANATH GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE MR. C. VEERABHDRAIAH AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NESARA BLUE BUILDING OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL GROUND IMMADIHALLI, WHITEFIELD POST BANGALORE-560 066 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. AJITH A SHETTY.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010810372025 NC: 2026:KHC:36197 MFA No. 9443 of 2025 AND: 1. MR. SHIVAPRAKASH @ MANJUNATH SON OF LATE C. VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT RENUKA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS, B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR-572 103 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.N ROOOPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N SRIDHAR.,ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 299 INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2025 PASSED IN P AND SC NO. 9/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 276 READ WTIH 372 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellants, who were not parties before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in P&SC No.9/24. 2. The appellants are questioning the impugned order dated 4.7.2025 passed in P & SC No.9/2024 by the learned II Additional District Judge at Tumkur vide order - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010810372025 NC: 2026:KHC:36197 MFA No. 9443 of 2025 dated 04.07.2025, whereby the petition filed by the respondent under the provisions of Section 276 r/w Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short `Act'), for grant and issuance of probate, with regard to the will dated 09.11.2016 in respect of petition schedule property executed by deceased Veerabhadraiah C came to be allowed. The respondent was granted Letters of Administration with regard to the petition schedule property therein. 3. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are none other than sisters of the respondent and daughters of Veerabadraiah C. Therefore, the respondent is none other than their only brother. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants filed the suit for partition on 25.11.2019 in OS No.350/2019, and thereafter, the respondent herein appeared and contested the matter, filed a statement and evidence of PW1 has - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010810372025 NC: 2026:KHC:36197 MFA No. 9443 of 2025 been recorded on 19.02.2021. Thereafter, respondent had appeared before the original suit proceedings and filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 for the first time stating that the father had executed a will in his favour. Pursuant thereto, on 11.03.2024 this petition is filed. On 11.03.2024 the respondent stealthily goes and files a petition for seeking grant of probate under Section 372 of the Act in P & SC No.9/2024 before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur. 4. In the said petition, the respondent deliberately does not make the appellants as parties to the proceedings. However, the respondent at paragraph No.2 of the impugned order has stated with regard to his father Veerabhadraiah C having two wives. First wife by name, Veeramma and three daughters by names, Annapurna, Vimala, Vishala, and second wife by name, Parvathamma having three daughters and sons by name, Veeramma, Shantha, Shivaprakash/petitioners and Chandrakala and - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010810372025 NC: 2026:KHC:36197 MFA No. 9443 of 2025 Viswanatha. Therefore, it is the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that despite the respondent having revealed the other heirs of his deceased father Veerabhadraiah C and the other wife, they are not made as parties in the probate petition deliberately with mala fide intention to knock off an order behind the back of the appellants. Despite the respondent having knowledge of the original suit being filed for partition by the very same appellants and having appeared and contested the matter. Therefore, learned counsel on this short point contends that the appeal requires to be allowed and the impugned order requires to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent sustains the impugned order stating that there is no illegality or perversity in the order. She also contends that the respondent would not have any objection in the outcome of the original suit where he has already placed the will before the original suit proceedings and whatever outcome - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010810372025 NC: 2026:KHC:36197 MFA No. 9443 of 2025 happens in the original suit, he will abide by the same. On these grounds, she seeks dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. 7. It is seen that the present appeal is preferred by the appellants under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 challenging the impugned order of grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the respondent. This Court had the opportunity to deal with the similar matter in MFA No.8204/2023. Whereby this Court has disposed of the appeal and reserved liberty to the appellants to approach the very same Court which passed the impugned order and seek relevant remedy invoking the relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It would be relevant for this Court to mention the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which reads as under. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010810372025 NC: 2026:KHC:36197 MFA No. 9443 of 2025 "263. Revocation or annulment for just cause.- The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. Explanation.- Just cause shall be deemed to exist where- (a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substances; or (b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or (c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or (d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or (e) the person to whom the grant was made has wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of this Part, or has exhibited under that Chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect." Section 299 of the Act reads as under. "299. Appeals from orders of District Judge.- Every order made by a District Judge by virtue of the powers hereby conferred upon him shall be subject to appeal to the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), applicable to appeals." Section 300 of the Act reads as under. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010810372025 NC: 2026:KHC:36197 MFA No. 9443 of 2025 "300. Concurrent jurisdiction of High Court.- (1) The High Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of all the powers hereby conferred upon the District Judge. (2) Except in case to which section 57 applies, no High Court, in exercise of the concurrent jurisdiction hereby conferred over any local area beyond the limits of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay [***] shall, where the deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddisht, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person, receive applications for probate or letters of administration until the State Government has, by a notification in the Official Gazette, authorized it so to do." 8. Though Section 300 of the Act confers concurrent jurisdiction of High Court in exercise of all powers conferred upon the District Judge. It would be relevant to mention here that the probate petition came to be filed by the respondent herein by not making the appellants or anyone as party respondent in his probate petition. Therefore there was no occasion for the Trial Court to have heard the appellants, who are not made parties deliberately by the respondent. But the fact remains that in the probate petition itself, the respondent had mentioned about his father having two wives and - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010810372025 NC: 2026:KHC:36197 MFA No. 9443 of 2025 several children. When that being the case, the probate Court ought to have directed the respondent to implead them as party respondents in the probate petition, which is not done. What is now sought by the appellants is for revocation and annulment of the probate petition, which is contemplated under Section 263 of the Act. Therefore, it would be appropriate in the background of the facts and circumstances for the appellant to approach the very same Court and file an application for revocation and annulment by showing just cause as stated herein and on all other grounds that are urged before this Court, which were not available before the probate Court. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swaminathan and other -vs- Alankaony (dead) through Lrs. in Civil Appeal No.798-799 has held that the right provision for application by the deceased heir would be under Section 263 of the Act for revocation of grant of Letters of Administration for just cause. The - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010810372025 NC: 2026:KHC:36197 MFA No. 9443 of 2025 relevant provision would be at paragraph No.6 of the judgment which is extracted herein: "6. As per Section 263, the grant of Letters of Administration may be revoked for "justice cause". Explanation (a) under Section 263 states that just cause shall be deemed to exist where the proceedings were defective in substance. Illustration (ii) under Section 263 deals with a case where `the grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited'. 10. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would be appropriate for the appellants to go before the District Judge to file the relevant application invoking the provision of Section 263 of the Act for seeking annulment and revocation of the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) This appeal is disposed of. ii) Liberty is reserved to the appellants to invoke relevant provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and file - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010810372025 NC: 2026:KHC:36197 MFA No. 9443 of 2025 necessary proceedings before the learned District Judge as per law. In the event of any such proceedings initiated, the learned District Judge shall hear the matter in accordance with law, and provide suitable opportunity to the appellants and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0