IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1852/2016 (ISA) BETWEEN:
SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA @ JAYALAKSHMI W/O SRI PRAKASH D/O SRI PATEL CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT DODDAMALALAVADI VILLAGE KOTHAGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 130 (BY SRI NAGARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI LAKSHMAIAH S/O SRI CHIKKANARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O SRI LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE R/O DODDAMALALAVADI VILLAGE KOTHAGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 130 … APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 299 OF ISA ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2016 PASSED ON MISC.PETITION NO.229/12 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 264 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T 1. Heard the appellant’s counsel. Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 is absent.
2. By the impugned order dated 18.01.2016, the court below allowed miscellaneous petition No.229/2012 filed under Section 264 of the Indian Succession Act and revoked the probate granted in favour of the appellant by order dated 20.02.2010 passed in P & SC No.64/2009. On perusal of the impugned order, it becomes clear that the court below proceeded to revoke the probate noticing the fact that the appellant had suppressed material facts when she applied for probate in respect of the will said to have been executed by Sri Chikkanarasaiah. It is also forthcoming from the impugned order that the appellant has filed a suit in O.S.No.291/2010 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Kunigal seeking declaration of her title over the property in question.
Obviously, the suit is based on the will said to have been executed by Sri Chikkanarasaiah. Revocation of probate was for a technical reason that there was suppression of material fact. Therefore, the impugned order does not come in the way of establishing the appellant’s title in the suit filed by her. In view of this, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE hkh.