- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19953 WP No. 9091 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9091 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE MALLAPPA, R/AT PANCHAVALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. S. NAGARAJ , ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BASAMMANNI W/O SADASHIVAMURTHY, D/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O MADAPURA VILLAGE, TALAKADU HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TQ, MYSURU-DISTRICT 571124 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED). 2. SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED). Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19953 WP No. 9091 of 2026 3. SRI. KUMARA, S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) 4. SRI. DORESWAMY, S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED). 5. SMT. CHANDRAMMA, W/O. MAHADEVA SWAMY, D/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O KATTEPURA VILLAGE, TALAKADU HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571122 6. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO. 211, MEGALAPURA VILLAGE, YELWAL HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571130 7. SRI. SHIVAMURTHY S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 8. SRI. MALLESHA, S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.2,3,4,7 & 8 ARE RESIDING AT PANCHAVALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19953 WP No. 9091 of 2026 9. SMT. MANI, W/O MAHADEVASWAMY, D/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O KALLIPURA VILLAGE, SOSALE HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571120 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2026 PASSED IN P & SC NO. 5006/2025 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT HUNSURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding maintainability. 2. Office has raised an objection regarding maintainability on the ground that the impugned order is passed under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, and there is an appeal provided under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act. Since the petitioner has an efficacious - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19953 WP No. 9091 of 2026 appeal remedy, the writ petition filed under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 3. In the order relied by the petitioner in the case of H.S.VASANTASENAIAH vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC reported in ILR 1994 KAR 2628, the law laid down is well settled. The doctrine of alternative remedy does not bar where order is illegal, affected by error apparent on the face of record or error of jurisdiction. In the case on hand, the petitioner has filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India and the petitioner has an efficacious appeal remedy provided under the statute. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HR