04 July 2025 Probate of Wills >> Inheritance  

The Karnataka High Court has allowed a Civil Revision Petition, setting aside an earlier order and rejecting a plaint in a case concerning property ownership that has spanned decades. The suit, Nagamani @ S. Nagarathna v/s S. Rajashekara Murthy & Another, was filed by the plaintiffs (respondents in the petition) seeking to reopen a Probate and Succession Case (P&SC No.19/1982) and challenge a succession certificate issued in 1986. They also sought a 1/3rd share in the suit property.

The petitioner (original defendant No.1) had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for rejection of the plaint, arguing that the suit was barred by earlier rulings.

Key points considered by the High Court:

• Previous Litigation: The defendant's father had bequeathed the suit property to defendant No.1 via a Will. This was contested by defendant No.2 (the plaintiffs' mother) in the P&SC case, which ultimately granted Probate to defendant No.1 in 1986.
• Prior Suit (O.S.No.565/1996): Defendant No.2 subsequently filed another suit seeking declaration, possession, and partition. This suit was partly decreed in 2006, specifically declaring that the current suit property was the self-acquired property of the deceased father and that defendant No.1 became its absolute owner by virtue of the Will. This decision was upheld by the High Court in RFA No.1301/2008 in 2011.
• Deletion of Issues: In a related writ petition (W.P.No.32166/2016), the High Court had already ordered the deletion of issues in the current suit (O.S.No.8855/2012) that sought to re-examine whether the property was self-acquired and whether the Will was duly executed. These issues had already been conclusively decided in the previous litigation.
• Res Judicata and Finality: The High Court emphasized that the plaintiffs' mother had actively contested the matter in both the P&SC case and the subsequent suit. Despite the plaintiffs' contention that they were minors or not parties to the earlier proceedings, the court held that their mother's representation of the family in those proceedings meant they could not now seek to reopen matters that had attained finality in 1986 and 2011.
• Supreme Court Precedent: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ramakrishna (dead) through LRs /vs./ Pillamma and others (Civil Appeal No.14275/2024), which held that attempting to reopen cases where family members had previously litigated and lost would amount to a "travesty of justice."

The High Court concluded that allowing the present suit to continue would be an abuse of the legal process, as the core issues had already been conclusively determined in prior, unchallenged proceedings. Consequently, the plaint in O.S.No.8855/2012 was rejected.

  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908