- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22352 MFA No. 8254 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8254 OF 2025 (ISA) BETWEEN: SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI D/O LATE SMT. JAYAMMA.C, AND SRI. CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.102, RAMALINGAPURA VILLAGE, MAGUNDI POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-563114. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LOKESH B., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI CHIKKANNA S/O LATE SRI. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, LINGARAJU LAYOUT, WARD NO.8, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562106. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRA G.J., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 299 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 PASSED IN P AND SC NO.5009/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S. 276 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ‘DICTATING JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22352 MFA No. 8254 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed calling in question the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Anekal, in P & S.C 5009/2025, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘the Act’ for short) seeking grant of probate/letters of administration in respect of the Will dated 31.08.2015 came to be dismissed. Brief facts 2. The appellant is the daughter of Late Jayamma C who died on 11.09.2024 leaving behind the suit schedule property. During her lifetime, the deceased had executed a registered Will dated 31.08.2015, bequeathing the schedule property in favour of the appellant. After the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22352 MFA No. 8254 of 2025 demise of the testator, the appellant claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. 3. The appellant filed a petition under Section 276 of the Act seeking grant of probate/letters of administration. In support of her case, she examined herself as PW1 and an attesting witness as PW2, produced the registered Will, sale deed, katha extract and death certificate. The respondent, who is the husband of the deceased and father of the appellant, appeared through counsel and filed a memo stating that he has no objection for grant of probate. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled principles governing probate proceedings. It is contended that the appellant has duly proved the execution and attestation of the Will in accordance with law by examining the attesting witness and producing relevant documents. It is further contended that the respondent has categorically admitted the claim of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22352 MFA No. 8254 of 2025 appellant and has not contested the proceedings. Despite such uncontroverted evidence, the Trial Court has dismissed the petition on hyper technical grounds, namely non-production of the genealogical tree and identical documents, which are not mandatory requirements under Section 276 of the Act. It is urged that the probate Court is only required to examine the genuineness and due execution of the Will and not the title or relationship of the parties and therefore the approach of the Trial Court suffers from non-application of mind and mis-application of settled law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent who is the husband of the deceased and father of the appellant has not contested the proceedings before the Trial Court and has in fact filed a memo expressing no objection for grant of probate in favour of the appellant. 6. Having heard the learned counsel, the point that arises for consideration is, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22352 MFA No. 8254 of 2025 whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act seeking grant of probate of the registered Will dated 31.08.2015 despite the Will being duly proved and in the absence of any contest from the respondent? 7. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the appellant has approached the Probate Court under Section 276 of the Act seeking grant of probate in respect of a registered Will dated 31.08.2015 executed by Smt. Jayamma.C. The material on record discloses that the appellant examined herself as PW1 and also examined one of the attesting witnesses as PW2. The attesting witness, has categorically stated, and deposed with regard to the execution of Will and the signature of the testator in his presence, thereby satisfying the requirement under Section 63 of the Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is not in dispute that the respondent who is none other than the husband of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22352 MFA No. 8254 of 2025 deceased and father of the appellant has appeared through counsel and has filed a memo stating that he has no objection for grant of probate. The said circumstance assumes importance, as there is no contest to the claim made by the appellant and the evidence on record remains uncontroverted. The Trial Court, despite noticing the aforesaid material, has proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground that the appellant has not produced the genealogical tree or identity documents to establish her relationship with the deceased. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an approach is legally untenable. 8. The scope of enquiry in probate proceedings is limited to examining the genuineness of the Will, its due execution and attestation, and testamentary capacity of the testator. The Court of Probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last Will and testament of the deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law, and whether, at the time of such execution the testator was in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22352 MFA No. 8254 of 2025 a sound disposing state of mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the purview of the Probate Court as held by the Apex Court in the case of Ishwardeo Narain Singh vs Smt. Kamta Devi And Others1. The Apex Court in the case of A. K. Kraipak vs Union of India2 observed that the dismissal of an appeal without granting an opportunity to the appellant to produce additional documents like the genealogical tree or identifying proof violates the principles of natural justice. The Probate Court is not concerned with the adjudication of title or inter se disputes regarding relationships, except the limited extent necessary for identifying the parties. 9. The insistence by the Trial Court on production of genealogical tree, aadhar card or voter card, in the absence of any contest to by the respondent amounts to importing extraneous circumstances not contemplated under Section 276 of the Act. The findings recorded by the Trial Court that the appellant has failed to prove her 1 AIR 1954 SC 980 2 (1969) 2 SCC 262 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22352 MFA No. 8254 of 2025 relationship with the deceased, despite the registered Will describing her as a daughter and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence is therefore perverse and contrary to the settled provisions and principles governing the probate jurisdiction. The Trial Court has not undertaken a comprehensive examination of the evidence in proper perspective, particularly with regard to recording a clear finding on the due execution of the Will in accordance with law. In order to avoid procedural irregularity and to afford an opportunity to place all the relevant materials on record, it is just and proper to remit the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, and the matter requires reconsideration by the Trial Court, keeping in view the limited scope of probate proceedings and the evidence already on record. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following : - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22352 MFA No. 8254 of 2025 ORDER (i) Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed in P & SC No. 5009/2025 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Anekal, is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (iv) The Trial Court shall reconsider the petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in light of the observation made herein and pass appropriate orders. (v) The parties are at liberty to place such additional evidence if any before the Trial Court. (vi) The Trial Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22352 MFA No. 8254 of 2025 period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71