Samuel B P Ponnaiya vs Nil on 11 January, 2010

IN THE HIGH coumr OF KARNATAKA. 

DATED Ems THE 1 1TH DAY OF   ~-

BEFORE}  

THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE MDHAN 

PROBATE CoP.V>ENb&.,v'12 t')E_2o_o#3  
BETWEEN : O' O

SAMUEL B P PONNAIYA' *  '
AGED 53 YEARS '- _ .
S/O LATE SR1. AA."P_0NNA1YA."'
RESIDING A*1';E1A,ir,' N0:a_102,--~* A ._
18'1" FL00R,.frARA';jA_EARfI  A

132    
BANGA;QRE~.5E0A:QQV1.  _ = ~   ...PETITIONER

[BY SR1.A'J,Ai\'JES  KtJMAR, ADV.)
AND?  _ . 

  E  .....  ...RESPONDENT

O " T ».'r>E*1'i--fr10N F'ILED UNDER PARTS VII AND 1x/

"SE'€:iIt10NS~A..._2E2:' 273, 276 AND 300 OF THE INDIAN

SU(_:CESSiONAC'r, 1925, PRAYING THAT THE PETITIONER
MAY BE -ALLOWED TO PROVE THE WILL DATED

._;;,__U__24.1:.20eS ANNEXED IN THE PETITION IN COMMON
 V.   EQRM AND ETC.

 OTHIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS

  DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

M:



'7

ORDER

This petition is presented by the

deceased testatrix–~SarnL1el B.P._Po.n_naiy;aVmi’or’_fV of K’

probate in respect of the

petition is in order. The requisite Vdocun1e”:_1_Vts’,V~ ihore” V

particularly the death certificate ‘~..26v.’§l2.2008
certifying the death of’fE$avitriV 25.11.2008.

the affidavitS two attesting
witnesses J;M.J .Sarnuel, are on
record’; effected in ‘The Hindu’ both

Chennai on 2.12.2009 fixing the

‘_ date~tofvh’earinV’g”asvV6_,1v.2OIO, there is no contest for grant

A the requirement of law is that in the

encased ‘a eontest the petitioner must go through the

fl”e2<;ereise of recording the evidence before grant of

probate or letters of administration, in the instant case

there is no contest and therefore, it would be

M

unnecessary to go through the rigmarole of reeofdirig

evidence, being in the nature of exparte

This was the Very same View tal«:e'n"by as le_ari1e.d lSing1x'eg

Judge of this Court in prob.cp.ii5/'ads:onippiaio.'1a§a'9s;<_

The safeguards in law, more~.._:appropriately:"fili'n4gV'oi; the it

petition in a prescribed. foririil befo're"'Vthe duly
designated authorities lilavliiigvbevenfiofnpiied with, there
is no necessiiguppti) i'e_p1'odi1c:e. already in the

pleadings eificience. In the light of

Section, 281 l 'Succession Act. 1925 r/w

rules frafn_ed,, by lCourt, there is substantial

comfilianee of"law in the resent etition. In II]
'_ _ i~. ….. <4

*opinion,_"thell'Will as claimed though titled Codicil dt.

2'«'i«Al.l.'i'–l'.2l.(VI)'(Zl;"sf~:is}=lproperly proved within the framework of

law petition qualifies for the grant of the relief

it :1' for.

3. The deceased Smt.SaV1’tr:i. Ponnaiya has left

V behind the Codicil, which. I find to be in order. The

52%

_-L

estate is left behind to the sor1~petitioner

daughter i\/[rs.Venni1a Manoharan {Nee

Codicil is executed on 24.11.2:£_)08,dajj.

death of the testatrix. who-..__wasV”adinittecitr

whence the Medieai’ by
letter Anr1eXure~N ~r;11ivs;\:~rd¢ceasAed was well
oriented. conpseious the Wiil and
was due states that the
testatrigg .. mind executed the
Codie-i_1 ‘d The affidavits of the two
attesting” indicate that they were

at thde-Vtiiiievwhen the Codicil was signed by the

‘

-The petition is in the form as prescribed by the

it R.u1es;¢requisit.e Annexures set out the schedules of both

Wdrnovabie and immovable properties of the deceased and

in which view of the matter, the petition deserves to be

ailowed .

iii

\~.,

-5-

The petition is accordingly allowed. is.

directed to issue probate on payment, offlthee K W’

Court fee. The petitioners to fi1ej$;ufith’t¥1″e

and true inventory within six months fromflhe A’date”of

grant of probate and a aeeo’un:t.’o~of ‘the said
properties Within or;e4_”‘yea1*VAVf1jo:ii«._V\ttje._date grant of

probate.

In.