SHEELA SAIMANI ALIAS SHEELA KRISHNAN Vs. NIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner assailing the order dtd. 27/9/2023 in P & S.C. 57/2023 on the file of XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, CCH 42, ('the trial Court' for short) whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Ss. 278 read with 290 and 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('ISA Act' for short) came to be allowed in part by issuing letters of administration in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner's prayer for declaration and permission to dispose of the suit schedule property came to be dismissed.

(2.) The appellant is the daughter and claims to be the sole legal heir of late Doraswamy Krishnan and late Sushila Krishnan. The father of the petitioner passed away on 22/12/2013 and the mother died intestate on 8/5/2022. During the lifetime, the parents had jointly purchased an apartment bearing number II C in 'Wood Creek Terraces' under a registered sale deed dtd. 16/9/1991. Subsequently, the father executed a registered Will dtd. 25/10/2000 bequeathing the property in favour of his wife, Sushila Krishnan who, upon his demise became the absolute owner and continued to pay taxes. After the death of the mother inte state, the appellant being the only class I legal heir, inherited the property. The appellant who is residing in Mumbai, found it difficult to administer the property and intended to dispose of the same, however the prospective purchaser insisted on production of letter of administration which necessitated filing of a petition under the ISA Act before the trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is the undisputed sole legal heir of the deceased parents and has succeeded to the estate by operation of law under the Hindu Succession Act. It is contended that there are no rival claims to the property and that public citation was issued in a newspaper, yet no objections were received. The learned counsel further contends that the appellant and her mother have been regularly paying taxes in respect of the property, thereby evidencing lawful possession and enjoyment. It is urged that in the absence of any contest and in view of the uncontroverted documentary evidence, the trial Court ought to have granted a relief of declaration and letters of administration in full. The denial/partial grant of relief is contended to be contrary to law, evidence and settled principles governing succession.