Introduction

In Sri Jayaram B S v. NIL (MFA No. 8090 of 2024), decided on 6 June 2025, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman and Hon’ble Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao) addressed a recurring procedural hurdle in probate practice: whether a sole legatee, not expressly named as an executor in a Will, can nevertheless obtain probate. The appeal was preferred under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA) against the order of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, which had dismissed a petition under Section 276 ISA solely on the ground that the petitioner was not an expressly appointed executor.

The case concerns the Will dated 20 January 2020 executed by late B. T. Sanjeevaiah. His son, the appellant, is the sole legatee. The Probate Court had accepted proof of due execution and attestation of the Will and noted the absence of any contest; yet, it refused probate by invoking Section 222 ISA, taking the view that probate can be granted only to an executor appointed in the Will. The High Court reversed, holding that the statute recognizes appointment of an executor “by necessary implication,” and that a sole legatee can qualify as such.

Summary of the Judgment

• The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s order dated 14 August 2024 in P & SC No. 32/2023, and directed the Probate Court to grant probate of the Will of late B. T. Sanjeevaiah, dated 20 January 2020, to the appellant “in due form,” forthwith.
• The Court reaffirmed that, under Section 222 ISA, the appointment of an executor may be express or arise by necessary implication. On the facts, the appellant, being the sole legatee and in view of the tenor of the Will, qualifies as an executor by necessary implication and is entitled to maintain an application for probate.
• The Bench further noted (adverting to coordinate bench authority) that although probate is generally not mandatory for Wills executed by Hindus, there is no legal bar to seeking and obtaining probate in such cases.

Analysis

A. Statutory Framework

• Section 222 ISA (To whom probate may be granted): Provides that probate shall be granted only to an executor appointed by the Will. The High Court emphasized the statutory qualification that such appointment may be either express or by necessary implication.
• Section 276 ISA (Petition for probate): Governs petitions seeking probate, under which the appellant had approached the Probate Court.
• Section 384 ISA (Appeals): Provides for appeals from orders of District Judges in probate and letters of administration matters; the present appeal was preferred under this section.

B. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Division Bench expressly relied on two coordinate-bench decisions of the Karnataka High Court:

• MFA No. 4477/2023: Held that an executor may be appointed by express words or by necessary implication, and that such an executor can maintain an application for probate.
• MFA No. 3238/2019: Clarified that a sole legatee can be treated as an executor by necessary implication (“executor according to the tenor”), and also reiterated that while probate is not mandatory for a Hindu Will, there is no prohibition against seeking and obtaining probate.

These coordinate-bench rulings supplied the decisive doctrinal foundation for the present decision. By adhering to them, the Division Bench ensured consistency in the High Court’s jurisprudence on probate eligibility when a Will does not expressly nominate an executor but its tenor implies such appointment.

C. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Factual Findings Uncontested: The Will (20 January 2020) was proved in the Probate Court through the examination of two attesting witnesses, and there were no objectors despite notice via paper publication. Thus, due execution and attestation were established and remained unchallenged.
2. Error of Law by the Probate Court: The sole ground for refusal was that the appellant was the legatee, not an expressly named executor. The High Court found this too narrow a reading of Section 222, which also recognizes appointment “by necessary implication.”
3. Executor by Necessary Implication: Given that the appellant was the sole legatee, and having regard to the tenor of the Will (vesting the property absolutely in him), the Court concluded that he stood in the position of an executor by necessary implication. This accords with the coordinate-bench authorities cited.
4. Entitlement to Probate: Once executor status is recognized (even impliedly), the statutory condition under Section 222 is satisfied. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to probate and the lower court’s contrary view had to be set aside.
5. Probate for Hindu Wills: Echoing the coordinate bench, the Court acknowledged that, although probate is generally not a statutory necessity for Hindu Wills in many jurisdictions, it is legally permissible to seek and obtain probate; therefore, the appellant’s petition was procedurally competent.

D. Impact and Prospective Significance

• Streamlining Probate Practice: The ruling reinforces that probate courts must look to the tenor of the Will, and not merely search for express nomination of an executor. Where the Will’s tenor supports it—particularly in cases of sole legatees—the petitioner may be treated as executor by implication and granted probate.
• Reduction of Procedural Missteps: Probate courts should refrain from dismissing petitions solely because no executor is expressly named. If the tenor of the Will implies executorship, probate is the appropriate grant. Otherwise, the petitioner may consider letters of administration with Will annexed. This judgment clarifies when the former path is appropriate.
• Certainty in Title and Marketability of Assets: By facilitating probate in such scenarios, the judgment promotes clearer title chains, especially in property transactions that prefer or insist on a probate grant as evidence of devolution.
• Guidance for Practitioners: Counsel should plead “executor by necessary implication” wherever the Will’s tenor supports it—especially in sole legatee situations—and ensure scrupulous proof of execution and attestation to avoid unnecessary litigation on form over substance.
• Harmonization with Coordinate-Bench Authority: The decision strengthens the internal consistency of Karnataka High Court jurisprudence, reducing the risk of divergent outcomes across benches in probate matters.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Probate: A grant by a competent court certifying that the Will is genuine and that the executor is authorized to administer the estate according to that Will.
• Executor (Express vs. Implied): An executor is the person authorized to carry out the directions in a Will. Appointment may be:
  • Express: The Will clearly names someone as executor.
  • By Necessary Implication: The wording and structure of the Will indicate that a person is meant to administer the estate, even if not expressly named—often termed “executor according to the tenor.”
• Sole Legatee: A person who receives the entire estate under a Will. Courts frequently infer that such a person is also intended to administer the estate, unless the Will suggests otherwise.
• Letters of Administration with Will Annexed: A different grant issued when there is a valid Will but no executor is appointed (or the executor cannot act). An administrator (not an executor) is then authorized to administer the estate. This judgment explains when a petitioner need not take this route because he qualifies as executor by implication.
• Section 222 ISA: Governs to whom probate may be granted; crucially, it recognizes implied appointment of executors. The present judgment turns on this feature.
• Notice by Publication: In probate, where heirs or interested parties cannot be directly served or fail to appear, notice is often issued via newspaper publication. Absence of objections post-publication can smooth the path to grant when execution is proved.
• Coordinate/Co-equal Bench: A bench of the same strength (e.g., Division Bench) in the same court. As a matter of judicial discipline, a coordinate bench generally follows earlier coordinate-bench decisions unless it refers the matter to a larger bench. This judgment follows that discipline.
• “In due form” Grant: A direction to issue probate according to prescribed legal formalities (including sealing, certificate format, and entry in the Register), indicating the court has completed the adjudicatory stage.

Practical Takeaways and Guidance

• When a Will creates a sole legatee and the Will’s tenor indicates that the legatee is to take absolutely and administer, plead “executor by necessary implication” under Section 222 ISA.
• Ensure strict proof of execution and attestation by examining both attesting witnesses, wherever possible, and document the absence of objections after due notice/publication.
• If the Will does not support an implied executorship, consider seeking letters of administration with the Will annexed instead of probate.
• For Hindu Wills, even if probate is not mandatory, parties may still seek probate to obtain a stronger evidentiary foundation for title and administration—this judgment reiterates there is no bar.
• Probate courts should avoid dismissals based solely on the absence of an express executor clause; they must examine the Will’s tenor for implied appointment.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s decision in Sri Jayaram B S v. NIL cements a pragmatic and text-faithful interpretation of Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act: an executor can be appointed not only expressly but also by necessary implication. In practice, a sole legatee will often satisfy this standard if the tenor of the Will evinces the testator’s intention that the legatee both take and administer the estate. By correcting a formalistic error of the Probate Court and ordering probate to issue “in due form,” the Division Bench has ensured that probate practice in Karnataka aligns with established principles and coordinate-bench precedent, while reinforcing that seeking probate of a Hindu Will is legally permissible even where not mandatory. The ruling will likely reduce procedural missteps, promote certainty of title, and provide a clear pathway for sole legatees to obtain probate when the Will’s tenor warrants it.

Case Details

• Court: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
• Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman and Hon’ble Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao
• Date: 6 June 2025
• Case No.: MFA No. 8090 of 2024 (ISA)
• Statutes Invoked: Sections 222, 276, and 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
• Disposition: Appeal allowed; lower court order set aside; probate directed to be granted forthwith.