(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or order in the Nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the Suo-Moto order dated 18.06.2025 passed in P and Sc No. 53/2024 by the Learned 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore, vide Annexure-D.)

CAV Order

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 18-06-2025 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Bangalore Rural District in P & SC No.53 of 2024.

2. Heard Sri K. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

          3.1. The petitioner files a petition under Sections 222, 264 r/w 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) seeking probate of the registered Will executed by deceased Basamma in favour of the petitioner. It is the averment in the petition that Basamma, W/o late Chennaiah was the sole and absolute owner in possession of land bearing Sy.No.80, new No.80/3 measuring 2 acres, out of 5 acres and 20 guntas in Thotagere Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk which was purchased by her. The history would be, Basamma married Chennaiah, they had no issues. Petitioner herein is said to be the son of younger sister of Basamma by name Munigangamma and the said Basamma was being taken care of by the petitioner. Basamma during her life time had executed a registered Will on 18-11-1991 bequeathing afore-mentioned property in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of the same. It is said that he comes to know of the Will while searching old documents in the house and comes across the original Will executed by the deceased Basamma.

          3.2. The petitioner in terms of the Will, as a legatee to act under the Will, sought probate of the same to enable him to have the RTC of the said property changed into his name. Therefore, he approaches the revenue authorities on 01-06-2024 seeking change of entry in his name on the strength of the Will. But, the respective Departments which he is said to have approached sought orders of the Court by granting probate of the Will. Therefore, he approached the concerned Court. The concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 18-06-2025, directed the petitioner to take steps to serve the legal heirs, if any of Basamma in terms of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and posted the matter to a particular date. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the concerned Court which directs issuance of notice to the legal heirs, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner sought probate of the registered Will. The testatrix of the Will died on 28-09-1999 and therefore, there is no necessity of even issuance of notice to the legal heirs or supposed legal heirs of the maternal aunt of the petitioner. He would submit that the petition be allowed and a direction be issued to probate the Will.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record.

6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. What drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is the order dated 18-06-2025. The order reads as follows:

          "This petition is preferred seeking the relief of grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 18.11.1991 said to have been executed by Smt.Basamma the maternal aunt of the petitioner.

          It is the say of petitioner that Basamma though married had no children in her wed-lock.

          That the husband of Basamma is pre-deceased. No document is adduced to show that whether the heirs of Basamma as per Sec.15 of Hindu Succession act are alive or not. Therefore, the following order.

          ORDER

          That for the aforementioned reasons it is hereby ordered that the petitioner herein shall take steps as against heirs, as per Sec.15 of Hindu Succession Act, if any, of Basamma. For same by 16.07.2025."

The history of the said order qua the order sheet is also necessary to be noticed. The petitioner had sought probate of the Will. Certain proceedings have taken place throughout, before the trial Court. The orders passed on 22-01-2025 till the impugned order are germane to be noticed. They read as follows:









It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to the case at hand and the concerned Court refers to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act erroneously. The submission is that, a person belonging to Hindu family dying intestate only would come within the ambit of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. Here, Basamma had not died intestate, but she had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner.

7. The submission of the learned counsel qua Section 15, though would in the first blush merit acceptance, but the contentions are contrary to law. There is no averment in the petition or in oath evidence adduced regarding the presence of other legal heirs and the further averment is that pursuant to public notice published in Kannadaprabha newspaper, no party has appeared before the trial Court to contest the Will. But, a notice under Section 283 of the Act is necessary to be issued in a case, where after leading evidence if it comes to the knowledge of the Court that husband of Basamma had pre-deceased Basamma. Therefore, notice under Section 283 of the Act was imperative.

8. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of JAGJEEVAN PRASAD v. PARVATI BAI 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5751, considers this issue and holds as follows:

          ".... .... ....

          23. Section 283(1)(c) of the Act contemplates that it was necessary for the trial Court seized with proceedings in P & SC No. 1/2001 to issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased Manohar Prasad before the grant of probate in favour of the appellant. In fact, the said proceedings in P. & SC No. 1/2001 were governed by the "Rules governing Probate and Administration Matters, 1964 (for short 'the Rules'). Rule 5(1)(iv) of the Rules mandate that it was necessary that notice/special citation of the proceedings is served by the appellant on all persons of the same degree of relation or nearer degree than the appellant as per the procedure prescribed under the said Rule. A conjoint reading of Section 283(1)(c) of the Act r/w Rule 5(1)(iv) of the Rules clearly indicate that in the facts of the instant case, it was incumbent upon the appellant as well as the trial Court to issue notice/special citation of the proceedings upon respondents herein and other relatives who are related to Manohar Prasad in same degree or a nearer degree as the appellant. The Apex Court in the case of Manju Puri v. Rajiv Singh Hanspal, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 197, held as under:

          "36 -- We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Single Judge erred in not issuing any citation to Smt. BeenaMehra in the probate proceedings and without any verification of genuineness of no objection certificates mechanically granted probate which was unsustainable. If it is accepted that in probate proceedings persons who have been disinherited in the Will on mere no objection certificates by them without either being called by probate Court to appear or certify their no objections or to file any pleading will lead to unsatisfactory result and may cause prejudice to persons who were not aware of the proceedings and are yet claimed to have submitted no objections. We thus conclude that even though learned Single Judge had discretion to issue citation or not but in the facts of the present case a citation ought to have been issued in exercise of discretion conferred under Section 283 of the Succession Act and the probate granted without issuance of such citation in the facts of the present case deserves to be revoked and learned Single Judge and the Division Bench committed error in rejecting the application for revocation filed by the appellant."

          24. It is true that issuance/non-issuance of a citation to a party is left to the jurisdiction of a probate Court. However, in facts of the case on hand, having regard to the fact that there was sufficient material to prima-facie indicate that the respondents were the wife and children of Manohar Prasad coupled with the fact that Manohar Prasad had other relatives who are related to Manohar Prasad in the same degree or a nearer degree as the appellant, it was necessary for the appellant as well as the probate Court to issue notice/citation to them as provided in Section 283(1)(c) of the Act r/w. Rule 5(1)(iv) of the Rules. In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant has not complied with Section 283(1)(c) of the Act r/w Rule 5(1)(iv) of the Rules and notice/special citation of the proceedings was not served by the appellant or the probate Court either on the respondents herein or other relatives who are related to Manohar Prasad in the same degree or a nearer degree as the appellant. It is therefore clear that it was incumbent upon the appellant to serve notice/special citation of the proceedings upon the respondents herein or the other relatives of Manohar Prasad and the omission on the part of the appellant to do so not only renders the proceedings defective in substance but would also vitiate the grant of probate.

          25. In the said P & SC No. 1/2001, apart from not citing anyone else as parties to the proceedings as stated supra, in the cause title to his petition, the appellant described the respondents as "all concerned". Having done so, it was absolutely essential on the part of the appellant to issue notice of the petition by way of paper publication published in a reputed/prominent daily newspaper having wide and sufficient circulation and also published regularly so as to notify all interested/concerned persons, especially the respondents herein and other relatives of Manohar Prasad to become aware of the proceedings and have their say in the matter by affording them sufficient opportunity in this regard. Instead, appellant got the notice of P & SC No. 1/2001 published in a newspaper, 'Jai Bhima Gada'."

          (Emphasis supplied)

The coordinate Bench holds that Section 283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act contemplates a situation in P & SC proceedings to issue notice calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate, before granting probate in favour of the appellant therein. I am in complete agreement with what is held in the aforesaid case. The situation, in the case at hand, is identical to what was considered by the coordinate Bench. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by trial Court in directing to take steps against the legal heirs. If there is none, it is for the petitioner to place such material before the Court.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petition, however reserving liberty as aforesaid, the petition stands disposed.