Title: SRI. M.R. MOHAN KUMAR & ORS v NIL
Citation: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4399 OF 2023 (ISA
Dated on: 1.1.2024
Corum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
Facts of the case
In the present case the appellants contested the decision of the lower court, which had dismissed their petition seeking probate for a property previously owned by one Sannarangappa. They argued that they were rightful beneficiaries of the property, which was granted to Sannarangappa in 1978. Following his demise in 2001, they claimed to have attempted to transfer the property’s ownership, citing a will executed by Sannarangappa in 2001. However, their efforts were thwarted by the authorities, who refused the transfer on the grounds of inadequate documentation. The crux of the appellants’ argument lay in their assertion that the absence of an executor named in the will should not preclude them from seeking probate. They contended that other relevant sections of the Indian Succession Act, particularly Sections 222(2) and 234, allowed for beneficiaries or those with a beneficial interest to apply for probate. The appellants provided evidence to support their argument, including the will itself and witness testimony confirming its legitimacy. Despite their efforts, the trial court decided against them, citing precedents and legal interpretations emphasizing the importance of naming an executor in the will in order to award probate.
Legal provision
In the present appeal The Tahsildar, instead of effecting khatha in the name of the petitioners on the strength of the registered Will, went on rejecting the same holding that necessary documents are not available for the purpose of transfer of khatha. The petitioner’s main contention was that there is no impediment under Section 276 or under any other provision of Indian Succession Act, 1925 or any Enactment for granting Probation Certificate and accordingly, prayed the Court to issue Probate/Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioners. Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 outlines the requirements for a petition for probate or letters of administration with the will annexed.
Court analysis and judgement
The Karnataka High Court relying upon its own precedent established in previous instances to justify its decision. It underlined that the lack of an executor should not be an impediment to pursuing probate, especially if the beneficiaries could demonstrate their entitlement through other means. The High Court allowed the appeal, overturning the lower court’s verdict and granting the appellant’s probate. The verdict reiterated the necessity of taking into account the factual background as well as the broader legal objectives in probate cases in order to ensure equitable outcomes.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Namitha Ramesh
