IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ REVIEW PETITION No.498/2016 IN M.F.A. No.1025/2014 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O. LATE D.M. ANNAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SRI PREM KUMAR S/O. LATE D.M. ANNAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O. LATE D.M. ANNAIAH REDDY, W/O. SRI ANANDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4. SMT. NEELAMMA @ LEELAVATHI D/O. LATE D.M. ANNAIAH REDDY, W/O. SRI MAHENDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 5. SRI PRAKASH S/O. LATE D.M. ANNAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 6. SMT. SUMITHRA D/O. LATE D.M. ANNAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PETITIONERS 5 AND 6 ARE OF UNSOUND MIND AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1 ALL ARE R/AT NO.826, SY.NO.30, SOMESWARA LAYOUT, DODDA KANNELLI, CARMELARAM POST, BANGALORE – 560 035. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. RAMAKKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O. VENUGOPAL REDDY, D/O. LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH REDDY, 2. SRI VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O. VENUGOPAL REDDY, 3. SRI KUM.YASHASWINI AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, D/O. VENUGOPAL REDDY, RESPONDENT NO.3 SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HER MOTHER & NATURAL GUARIDAN SMT.VASATHA W/O. VENUGOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.38, DODDA KANNALLI, CARMELARAM POST, BANGAL ... RESPONDENTS (R-2 AND R-3 – V.C.O. DATED 31/07/2019 SERVICE ON THEM IS HELD SUFFICIENT) ***** THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 27/11/2015 PASSED IN MFA NO.1025/2014 (ISA), ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the judgment and order dated 27/11/2015, passed in MFA.No.1025/2014 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. By the said judgment and order, P & S.C.No.3/2013 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein was allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 30/11/2013 passed in the said proceeding by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. Consequently, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were granted probate of Will Ex.P.1 dated 11/02/2004 with a copy of the Will annexed thereto and the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), was directed to issue probate with a copy of the Will annexed thereto to respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, based on the market valuation of “A” and “B” Schedule property, provided they are ready and willing to pay maximum Court Fee of Rs.49,500/-.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, this review petition has been filed by the petitioners, who were neither parties in P & S.C.No.3/2013 nor in MFA.No.1025/2014, out of which the appeal arose.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the grant of probate by this Court by setting aside the judgment dated 30/11/2013 in P & S.C.No.3/2013 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural Court, Bangalore and hence, this review petition has been filed. However, we find that a specific provision is available under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”, for the sake of brevity] in terms of Section 263 of the Act, which provides for revocation or annulment of grant of probate for a just cause.
3. In the circumstances, we hold that the review petition is not maintainable and hence, it is liable to be dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file an application or a petition under Section 263 of the Act, before the appropriate Court.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners has sought for permission to withdraw this review petition, with liberty to file a petition or an application under Section 263 of the Act.
5. Submission of learned counsel for petitioners is placed on record.
6. Review petition is permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a petition or an application under Section 263 of the Act.
Office to return certified copy of the judgment and order dated 27/11/2015 and other certified copies of documents produced in this review petition to petitioners’ counsel forthwith, subject to filing copies of the same for the purpose of record.
It is further observed that in the event any application or petition is filed under Section 263 of the Act and there being any delay in filing the same, the time consumed in prosecuting this review petition and till the filing of an application or petition under Section 263 of the Act may be excluded, provided the application/petition under Section 263 of the Act is filed within a reasonable time.
In view of dismissal of the review petition as withdrawn, all pending applications stand withdrawn subject to the aforesaid liberty.
Sd/- JUDGE *mvs Sd/- JUDGE