High Court Karnataka High Court

Venkubayamma vs Master Harshith Rao on 7 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Venkubayamma vs Master Harshith Rao on 7 November, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BAN

DATED THIS THE arm DAY OF NOVEMBEE;:"2(}Q 8 --.J:  j  _

BEFORE

THE HONBLE      _ 

M.F.A.NO.7039/»2Q04l:FSA5--.C/W»fl;  % *  
M.F.A.NO.7040'v{2;Q_04[iSA)_V_      

M.F.A.No.7039/2004: - _  '

©»§_f;'9..&v:     % 

:.smt.ven1mba3aamm;a i  
Dead by_.La'?f:fi»._  "  ..   .

a)  
"T/0-V¢Ti3'7>'¥3%*.&"'«.V  .
Agfi-50   %  

b) smt.VkM1_km n £1 ba4V3famm_v"":"'%a
W ,4' 9. Vtmkp barao
_ ~"Ag_<:§4~§  .. ..... .. n

 " ~ o.Nidagatta village
 (P), Mains: Taluk
"Kola: mtrict.

g 2. gas
 AA '.3/oiate Papanna

Agsd 3'? years

V. A'  "R_!o.RaflWay Station

v}Mast:hi road, Malur

V%  V . 'I'q. 85 Dist. K0131'.



3. Sathyanarayana Rao
8 / o.Iate Paparma
Aged 34 years
R] o.Rai1Wa.y Station
Masthi road, Malur

Tq. & Dist. Kolar.  » y  '4 "~ 

(By Sri P.S.Ma}ipatiI, Ac1v., )
AHD;

1. Master Harshith Rae

S/o.Ma11ju1a Bai  *

Aged 13years  , ,_

Minor, represented by '- _ .

His natural   .  »
Mother     
R/e.Rail}vay"      .
Masrh: rbadefiialfir  .

2. Appi3_Rao V "   
S/olaie  4  
Major, Y</pfiailway Stgfien
Masmi  '
Ifid§ar__L13i$H'iet;"'  .....  ...Responde:1ts

    Adv., for C/ R)

  u/S384 of Indian Succession Act,
against:  .ji.1dgr31ent and order dated 27.8.2004 passed

  P 83 SC No.2/03 on the file cf the Pr}. Diet. And

  ,Sess_iens" Judge, Kolar, aliewing the petition filed

 "«.'u,l,s.f&?6 and 278 of Indian Succession Act, seeking to

=   gra'I1tAprobate of the Wills dated 22. 1 1.2000 executed by
  V' the late Papanna.



ms"

M.F.A.NO.7040!2004:

BETw£EN;

1. Smtvenkubayamma
Dead by LRS.

a) Smtfirishnabayamma
W/0.Vcr1k0bara0
Age:50 years.

b) S111t.Munnubayam1na
W / o.Vcnkobarao
Age:45 years.

Both are R/o.Nidagatta  
SaI1taha1Ii(P), Mala; Taliiks  
Kolar District.  " I  "  '

2. Ra1nVa"R'ae,f:, _  -
S/0.1ate._Pa    
Aged  ytzans     
R/o.Raflway Station.  '
Masthi ro"ad,"Mai£.ur=_ 
T(}_§ & Dist. K0131'. V

.' Sathyazlazfayana Rae
    
=Ag.ed 3-{years
R.]o.Rai1_wiay Station
Métsthi road, Malur

 AA Tq. &».__Dist. Kolar. ...Appellants

*  s."{Ey--.S:fi P.S.Ma1ipafi1, Adv., )

 " 1. Manjula Bai

W/o.Appu Rae
Aged 37 years
R/o.Rai1way Station



Masthi road, Malur
Kolar District.

2. Appu Rao
S/o.1ate Papanna
Aged about 42 years
R/o.Rai1way Station   
Masthi road, Malur 7

Kolar District.  

(By 811 M.V.Vedachala,   '   

This MFA filed u;S.384'o§--.{_1}dian Succession Act,
against the judwent  ors_:ieIj-- date-d_ 27 8.2004 passed
in P & SC No.3/03 on *_L_he".f1§e»' of'eethe""Pr1. Dist. And
Sessions Judge, Kola.r,.., allowing'  Pctition filed
1115.276 and 2238 of I1i1d1a1i;Suecess1o1':« Act, seeking to
gent probate of t;?f1e.'i*l?i}lsW;iate;i 22.1'I;:2000 executed by
the Late  »      

oiivfoii hearing this day, the
Court deh§_rered.~v§]:1e"foiio_W3;1g; _*

"   

   judge has granted probate in
 

 §~es;*;reet,V_vef_,\\Z§?i£1s dated 22.11.2000 said to have been

 1,2-f 

  one Papanna in favour of petitioners in P 85

[V so :«os.2d&3;2oo3.

A     Petitioners in the said cases had applied for

'd    of probate inter alia contending that deceased

V Papanna who is the grand father of petitioner in P &. SC

N» cgmueewiv 1.



No. No.2 /2003 and father--ii1---law of petitioner in P 82; SC

No.3/2003 had bequeathed certain properties in favour

of petitioners by executing two separate  on

22.11.1200 . 
3. ]Respondet1ts entered appearance  ~ 

objections contending that wills profounoefii. by K  

petitioners are fabricated  Wifomedo  

F'etit;ione:'s are not entitled' foi*'--~  :;")robéf1te.i 

Respondents have also questioiied the and

authority of the Court to

location of properties of
It is ObVi0i{isv..t11aft pmfotuided’ by pefitioners

have become ‘flew of the objection
Ttherefore, the learned
trial jucige under Section 288 of

the Indian’i’St1ooes’;sioni”Act. It is not in dispute that

the alleged Wills are not made

temioees and local limits of orignai oivii

the High Court ané Adjudicator of
[9, ,,.-£e”\/Nr”-“53/Q'(..~’

Madras and Bombay as specified in Section 57(a) of_tl1e

Indian Succession Act. The learned trial judge

considered the provision of Section 213 ofldtfhe

Succession Act wherein it is stated”

Executor or legatee can be in ~.

justice, unless the will is probate. V. of V

Section 213 shall apply ‘Wills “made by in
Hindus, Buddhist, Sikh or wins are of

classes specified: Section 57 .

4. judge v;fiti’Ioet going into these
jufisdicfiohél the case as if he was
decidifig ,3, .si–1itA.’=_ V”‘E”herefore, impugmd order

Zimlnflt Siustaifled… A _____ .. ‘\

,5′;’l’–II3A I pass the following order:
accepted.

Thea orders are set aside.

matter is remanded to the learned Dishict

Adtzdée for consideration in the light of the observations

ifmade herein and in accordance with law.

Office is directed to send back the records’

with a. cepy of this oréer.

IIELS.