SRI JAYARAM B S v. NIL, Karnataka High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Sri Jayaram B.S., is the sole legatee named in the Will of his father, late B.T. Sanjeevaiah, dated 20.01.2020. The Will was duly proved by the appellant before the Probate Court. However, the Probate Court declined to grant probate on the ground that the appellant was not an executor appointed under the Will but merely a beneficiary. The Probate Court relied on Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which mandates that probate shall be granted only to an executor appointed by the Will. The appellant filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, challenging the order dated 14.08.2024 of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, which dismissed the petition filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a sole legatee of a Will, who is not expressly named as an executor, can maintain an application for probate by virtue of being an executor by necessary implication under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Whether probate can be granted to a beneficiary of a Will when no executor is expressly appointed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant is the son of the executor of the Will and the property is bequeathed to him as an absolute right holder.

Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 allows probate to be granted to an executor appointed by express appointment or by necessary implication.

Reliance was placed on judgments from co-equal benches of the Karnataka High Court (MFA No.4477/2023 and MFA No.3238/2019) holding that a sole legatee can be deemed an executor by necessary implication and can maintain an application for probate.

It was also submitted that although probate is not mandatory for a Hindu Will, there is no bar to obtaining probate in such cases.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
MFA No.4477/2023 (Karnataka High Court)	Executor of a Will can be appointed by express appointment or necessary implication, enabling maintenance of probate application.	Supported the view that the appellant, as sole legatee, can be considered executor by necessary implication and maintain probate application.
MFA No.3238/2019 (Karnataka High Court)	The sole legatee of a Will can be deemed executor by necessary implication; probate is not mandatory for Hindu Wills but can be obtained.	Reinforced that the appellant's position as sole legatee entitled him to probate despite not being expressly named executor.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

MFA No.4477/2023 (Karnataka High Court)

Executor of a Will can be appointed by express appointment or necessary implication, enabling maintenance of probate application.

Supported the view that the appellant, as sole legatee, can be considered executor by necessary implication and maintain probate application.

MFA No.3238/2019 (Karnataka High Court)

The sole legatee of a Will can be deemed executor by necessary implication; probate is not mandatory for Hindu Wills but can be obtained.

Reinforced that the appellant's position as sole legatee entitled him to probate despite not being expressly named executor.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the Will was executed on 20.01.2020 and the appellant is the son of the testator. The execution of the Will was duly proved by the appellant through two attesting witnesses, and there were no objectors to the probate application. The Probate Court declined probate solely because the appellant was not expressly named as executor. The Court referred to Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which allows an executor to be appointed by express appointment or by necessary implication. Considering the wording of the Will and the appellant's status as sole legatee, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to maintain the probate application as executor by necessary implication. The Court relied on prior decisions of co-equal benches that supported this interpretation and recognized that probate can be granted even in cases of Hindu Wills, though not mandatory.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed.

The order dated 14.08.2024 of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, dismissing the probate application is set aside. The Probate Court is directed to grant probate of the Will dated 20.01.2020 in favor of the appellant forthwith. This decision directly affects the parties by enabling the appellant to obtain probate as executor by necessary implication. No new precedent beyond the application of existing principles was established.

SRI JAYARAM B S v. NIL

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19539-DB MFA No. 8090 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8090 OF 2024 (ISA)

BETWEEN:

SRI. JAYARAM B.S.

S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH B.T.

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

RESIDING AT No.6

BILLINAKOTE VILLAGE

SOMPURA HOBLI

NELAMANGALA TALUK

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SANDESH C.R., ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. JAYARAJ D.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

NIL

…RESPONDENT

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 384 INDIAN

SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED

14.08.2024 PASSED IN P AND S.C.No.32/2023 ON THE FILE OF

THE IX ADDITIIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. DISMISSING THE

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 276 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION

ACT, 1925 AND ETC.

- 2 -

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 14.08.2024 of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in P & SC No.32/2023.

2. The appellant is the sole legatee named in the Will of his father late B. T. Sanjeevaiah. The Will dated 20.01.2020 was duly proved by the appellant before the Probate Court as is evident from the order of the Probate Court. However, on the contention that the appellant was a legatee in the bid and not an executor appointed under the Will, the Probate Court has declined to grant probate. It is stated that Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides that the Probate shall be granted only to an executor appointed by the Will and since the appellant is only the beneficiary of the Will and not the executor, probate cannot be granted.

- 3 -

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a son of the executor of the Will and that a reading of the Will would clearly show that the property in question is bequeathed to him by his father. The property stands transferred to him and vests in him by virtue of the Will as an absolute right holder. It is submitted that Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 specifically provides that the appointment as executor may be express or by necessary implication.

4. Learned counsel also places reliance on judgment of co-equal bench of this Court in MFA No.4477/2023 which has held that the executor of the Will by express appointment or necessary implication can maintain an application for probate. Relying on an earlier decision of another co-ordinate bench of this Court in MFA No.3238/2019, it was held that the sole legatee of a Will would be executor by necessary implication. It was further held that though a probate is not required for a Will executed by a Hindu, there is no bar to apply or to obtaining a probate even in case the testator is a Hindu.

- 4 -

5. We have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It is an admitted fact that the Will was executed on 20.01.2020. The appellant is a son of the testator. In the Probate Court as well as before this Court, notice was taken out by paper publication and there is no objector who has entered appearance. The execution of the Will has been duly proved by the appellant by examining two attesting witnesses. The Probate Court has also observed all these matters and has declined relief only on the ground that the appellant is not an executor named in the Will.

6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that since a person who is an executor of the Will, by express appointment or by necessary implication can maintain an application for probate, the sole legatee, in the instant case and specifically in view of the wording of the Will was entitled to maintain this application for probate.

- 5 -

7. In the result:-

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 14.08.2024 of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in P & SC No.32/2023, is set aside.

(iii) There will be a direction to the probate Court to grant probate of the Will of Sri. B. T. Sanjeevaiah dated 20.01.2020 in due form to the appellant, forthwith.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)

JUDGE

RAK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

MFA 8090 of 2024

SRI JAYARAM B S v. NIL

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

SRI JAYARAM B S v. NIL

Comments