- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3279 WP No. 31606 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 31606 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GANESHA B.S. SON OF SHIVANNA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT BENAGALURU VILLAGE, HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571102. 2. SRI MAHESHA B S SON OF SHIVANNA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT BENAGALURU VILLAGE, HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KRISHNA NAYAKA SON OF SANNA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANNAKAVALU VILLAGE, HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571102. 2. SRI SWAMY NAYAKA SON OF SANNA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANNAKAVALU VILLAGE, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3279 WP No. 31606 of 2025 HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNEEL S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.08.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-J PASSED IN P AND SC.NO.64/2022 ON I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 (2) OF CPC, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU AND THEREBY TO DISMISS THE I.A.NO.4 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC IN P AND SC. NO-64/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-D, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORDER 1. This petition by the petitioners in P & SC.No.64/2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.4 dated 29.08.2025, whereby the said application filed by the respondents - impleading applicants to come on record as contesting respondents to the probate proceedings was allowed by the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3279 WP No. 31606 of 2025 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners therein who are the children of Sri.Sivanna Nayaka filed the aforesaid P & SC.No.64/2022 seeking grant of letter of administration in relation to an alleged Will dated 26.12.2017 said to have been executed by their grandmother in favour of the petitioners. In the said probate proceedings, the petitioners contended that apart from them, there were no other heirs or legal representatives to the estate of their deceased grandmother and that in the light of the aforesaid Will dated 26.12.2017, the petitioners were entitled to grant of letter of administration in their favour since there was no appointment of Executor in the said Will. During the course of trial, the respondents filed the instant application I.A.No.4 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC., inter alia contending that the petitioners had created the alleged Will with an intention of grabbing the portion of land and public road of 15 feet towards Southern side of Survey No.30 which was the schedule property to the said Will. It - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3279 WP No. 31606 of 2025 was also contended by the respondents - impleading applicants that the said alleged Will was created by the petitioners by mentioning wrong boundaries so as to suit their claim in encroaching the existing public road which is used by the villagers and applicants for more than 40 years and also portion of the applicant's land. The impleading applicants also brought to the notice of the Trial Court that the petitioners had filed separate suit in O.S.No.207/2021 against them on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Periyapatna, which is pending consideration and as such, the respondents / impleading applicants were both proper or necessary parties to the probate proceedings. The said application for impleadment filed by the respondents having been opposed by the petitioners, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.4, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3279 WP No. 31606 of 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court completely fell in error in permitting impleadment of the respondents who were third parties to the petitioners and their grandmother, without appreciating that the scope and ambit of proceedings filed for grant of probate / letter of administration would be restricted to the legality, validity, execution, genuineness etc., of the alleged Will and the right, title, interest and possession of either the Testator or the alleged legatees over the property in question qua third parties cannot be adjudicated or gone into in the said probate proceedings. 4. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in the case of Krishna Kumar Birla Versus Rajendra Singh Lodha and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 300, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under; 86. The propositions of law which in our considered view may be applied in a case of this nature are: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3279 WP No. 31606 of 2025 (i) To sustain a caveat, a caveatable interest must be shown. (ii) The test required to be applied is: Does the clam of grant of probate prejudice his right because it defeats some other line of succession in terms whereof the caveator asserted his right? (iii) It is a fundamental nature of a probate proceedings that whatever would be the interest of the testator, the same must be accepted and the rules laid down therein must be followed. The logical corollary whereof would be that any person questioning the existence of title in respect of the estate or capacity of the testator to dispose of the property by will on ground outside the law of succession would be a stranger to the probate proceedings inasmuch as none of such rights can effectively be adjudicated therein. 148. Right of a co-owner is not affected by testamentary disposition. Indisputably, the object of conferring the right on a co-sharer or owner of an adjacent immovable property is to exclude strangers from acquiring interest in an immovable property as a co-sharer or to keep objectionable strangers away from the neighbourhood. The same by itself, in our considered opinion, does not constitute a caveatable interest. A right of pre-emption as was submitted by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3279 WP No. 31606 of 2025 Mr Venugopal may run with the land as has been held in Audh Behari Singh V. Gajadhar Jaipuria, but the same would not, it will bear repetition to state, constitute any caveatable interest." 5. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the respondents / impleading applicants claim independent right and they do not claim any right, title, interest or possession over the schedule properties through or under the petitioners or under the alleged Testatrix and consequently, the respondents cannot be said to have any caveatable interest in probate proceedings so as to oppose grant of probate, especially when a separate suit is pending in O.S.No.207/2021 was pending adjudication and parties would have to be relegated to work out the remedies in the said suit. 6. It is needless to state that any order, finding, observation, judgment, decree etc., passed / to be passed in P & SC.No.64/2022 would not be binding upon the respondents nor would it affect their rights and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3279 WP No. 31606 of 2025 contentions in the pending O.S.No.207/2021 or in any other litigation between the parties. 7. Under these circumstances, I deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and dispose of I.A.No.4 by issuing certain directions. 8. In the result, the following; ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 29.08.2025 is hereby set aside. I.A.No.4 for impleadment filed by the respondents is disposed of by directing that any order, finding, observation, judgment, decree etc., passed / to be passed in P & SC.No.64/2022 would not be binding upon the respondents nor would it affect their rights and contentions in the pending O.S.No.207/2021 or in any other litigation between the parties. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3279 WP No. 31606 of 2025 (iii) All rival contentions between the petitioners and the respondents in O.S.No.207/2021 and in any other litigation are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13