- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2601-DB MFA No. 104413 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104413 OF 2025 (ISA) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI PRASAD S/O ACHYAUTRAO PATIL, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. NARTAKI PRIDE APARTMENT, NEW GOODS SHED ROAD, BELAGAVI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590 001. 2. SHRI. SHAILENDRA S/O ACHYAUTRAO PATIL, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. H.NO. 8-43/8/M, BALAJI HILLA COLONY, BODUPPAL, RANGAREDDY, TQ. AND DIST. RANGAREDDY-500 039, STATE: TELANGANA. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SONU SUHEL N., SRI. PRAVEEN MUKKUND, ADVOCATES) AND: NIL … RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 299 AND 384 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT 1925, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI IN P AND SC NO.57/2024 DATED 21.03.2025 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED FOR PROBATE OF DECEASED PRABHA D/O. NARAYANRAO KABBUR @ NAIK IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2601-DB MFA No. 104413 of 2025 THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.02.2026, THIS DAY, B. MURALIDHARA PAI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI) 1. The Appellants filed petition in P&SC No.57/2024 before the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking probate of the Will dated 05.01.2023 purportedly executed by Ms. Prabha, daughter of Sri Narayan Rao Kabbur @ Naik. The trial court dismissed the petition vide its impugned order dated 21.03.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned Counsel for Smt. Sonu Suhel N., and Sri Praveen Mukkund, Advocates for the Appellants, vehemently contended that the trial court grossly erred in rejecting the petition without duly considering the Will executed in the Appellants' favour. They submitted that the court wrongly held that the deceased's share had not been finalized. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2601-DB MFA No. 104413 of 2025 Further, the impugned order occasions a miscarriage of justice, as the trial court dismissed the petition on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties without affording the Appellants an opportunity to implead them. In the circumstances, the learned Counsel urged that the impugned order is contrary to law and warrants interference by this Court. 3. The reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the petition are as under: “11. On perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner. as per Ex.P8 the property extract which shows deceased along with others were joint owners of the property. But the share of deceased 1/5 as contended by the petitioners is not finalised. When the share of the deceased is not finalised then it is not appropriate to come to conclusion that, she is having 1/5 share in the suit properties. The petitioners contend that, after the death of her father, the deceased acquired 1/5 share in the properties scheduled A & B, but with respect to that aspect the petitioner not produced any material. Similarly, when the share of the deceased is not finalised and the property standing in the joint name of deceased and others, then naturally the other persons also necessary party to the proceedings. Because later on they cannot contain a different version. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2601-DB MFA No. 104413 of 2025 12. In order to avoid complexity, it is better if the other person who are also joint owner of the property are to be made as party. Moreover one more aspect is that the petitioners contend that the deceased was unmarried. Under such circumstances when the petitioner not able to establish the absolute right of the deceased over the scheduled A & B properties then naturally petitioners are not entitle the probate. 13. The petitioners also contend that, as per Ex.P11 to 14 the deceased having Mutual Fund in her name. With respect to that aspect they have produced self attested copy of the statement. But those statement furnished by the petitioners as per Ex.P11 to 14 are also not tallying with the pleadings of the petitioners. 14. Considering the contention of the petitioners with documents, it shows that the petitioner, not made out sufficient ground to grant probate in favour of petitioners on the basis of the WILL executed by deceased Miss. Prabha D/o Narayanrao Kabbur@ Naik with respect to scheduled A to F. 15. Considering all these aspects when the petitioner not made out sufficient ground to grant probate in their favour with respect to the properties mentioned in the schedule then naturally the petitioners are not entitle for probate. Accordingly, I answer above point No.1 in the negative.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2601-DB MFA No. 104413 of 2025 4. The impugned order conveys the impression that the trial court rejected the petition primarily on the ground that the other joint owners of the property were not impleaded as parties, and that their presence was necessary to avoid complexity in the proceedings. In such circumstances, the trial court ought to have afforded the Appellants an opportunity to implead those persons before dismissing the petition for non joinder of necessary parties. The Appellants contended that they are ready and willing to bring all such persons on record, as the trial court deems fit, for adjudication of the petition. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, in order to avoid miscarriage of justice. 5. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2601-DB MFA No. 104413 of 2025 (ii) The impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed in P & SC No.57/2024 by the learned IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after affording the Appellants an opportunity to implead all necessary parties to the proceedings. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE BVV CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5