(BY SRI K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE) v. SRI RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

(BY SRI K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:

SMT. SUBHADRAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.19, KALIDASA ROAD JAYALAKSHMIPURAM V.V. MOHALLA MYSURU – 570 012.

SMT. HARI VATHSALA AHLUWALLIA D/O LATE M. SHIVANNA AND W/O. HAMINDER S. AHLUVALIA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24175 WP No. 16994 of 2025 HC-KAR CITIZEN OF UNITED STATES AND RESIDING AT DOOR NO-7283-SILEVER HILL PATH, VICTOR NEW YORK - 14564 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HER SISTER HOUSE: C/O. MANONMANI M.S., DOOR NO.1127 19TH CROSS, NANDAHAHALLI VASANTH NAGARA MYSURUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 570 012.

PROF. MANONMANI M.S., D/O LATE M. SHIVANNA W/O. SRI DEVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1127, 19TH CROSS VASANTH NAGARA MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 570 012. (BY SRI K.MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO QUASH IN THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2025, ON 0.S.NO.1236/2023, WHICH IS IMPUGNED UNDER THIS WRIT PETITIONER, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC., I.A.NO,.26, THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24175 WP No. 16994 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 24-04-2025 allowing an application in IA No. 26 in O.S. No.1236 of 2023 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff seeking summoning of certain documents.

2. Heard Sri K S Bheemaiah, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri K Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Ravishankar S., learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

3. The issue revolves round existence of two Wills. One Will that is executed on 25-09-2000, a copy of which was summoned to the Court on an application filed by the present petitioner, who is the son of the plaintiff and one late Shivanna. It transpires that late Shivanna had bequeathed certain properties in favour of the sons and the daughters, in terms of the Will dated 25-09-2000. On an application so filed as observed hereinabove, the Will is summoned. Likewise, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24175 WP No. 16994 of 2025 HC-KAR plaintiff then prefers an application seeking summoning of a will that is said to have come into existence on 22-12-2004.

Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/applicant submits that the Will which was earlier made in favour of the petitioner stood cancelled and a subsequent Will has been executed by the father on 22-12-2004. Therefore, the application is filed for summoning the said Will.

If the application of the petitioner/defendant no. 3 could merit favourable consideration at the hands of the concerned Court, the same could not have been denied to the 1st respondent/plaintiff who wanted to place on record a particular Will. Since the entire issue before the concerned Court revolves around the claim for partition, the two Wills that are said to be in existence, are necessary to be considered by the concerned Court.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no pleading with regard to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24175 WP No. 16994 of 2025 HC-KAR existence of the Will and that they have not filed their written statement.

The order of the concerned Court reads as follows: “…. …. …. REASONS

POINT NO. 1: The alleged Will dated 25.09.2000 is stated by this party. The alleged Will shall be prove based on the preponderance of probabilities. The witnesses signature etc., by considering that the amendment as per the order of this court etc., At this stage, it is very much necessary that the lost Will has to be taken into consideration before arriving into a conclusion that, when the Will which was registered before the Sub-Register it was called before the court, it has to be summon in order to know the fact then only further procedures shall be complied otherwise it would leads to reparable loss and injury and the true facts will not come into light in order to prove a case. It is very much necessary to summon the documents. Hence, the IA is deserves to be allowed. Accordingly and in the interest of justice deserves and equity, I answer the Point No.1 in the Affirmative.

Point No.2: In view of above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The IA No. 26 U/O 16 Rule 1 and 21 r/w Section 151 of CPC filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. Issue notice on IA No.26 to the Sub-Registrar, Mysuru South, Mysuru as per PF returnable by 04.06.2025.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24175 WP No. 16994 of 2025 HC-KAR The afore-quoted order that is passed allowing the application filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff seeking summoning of the Will dated 22-12-2024 does not warrant any interference, as I do not find any perversity in the order.