The Karnataka High Court held that a tenant can’t challenge a landlady’s will especially when his occupation of the land was opposed by the landlady during her lifetime. This judgement came in the background of a landlady’s will via which she gave the full land to her daughter-in-law as inheritance. After the landlady’s death the daughter-in-law submitted the will for probate in a Bengaluru court.
No legal heirs opposed the landlady’s will. However, the tenant opposed the landlady’s will on the ground that he has filed Form No.7A under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, claiming occupancy rights of the land which is the subject matter of the Will.
Brief background of the land and probate of Will case
Late H.G. Shammanna owned 1 acre 28 guntas of land which was transferred to his wife – Smt. Jayamma upon his death Smt. Jayamma got this land through a partition decree (OS no. 253/1998) and the revenue entries were also made in her name. Jayamma executed a Will on February 19, 2007, transferring it to her daughter-in-law – Smt. Meera.
However, a man named Mr. Gangadhara, claiming to be a tenant of the land, filed Form No.7A under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, asserting occupancy rights over a part of the land, and his claim is pending consideration.
It is clear that Gangadhara does not claim any independent right over any of the properties listed in the petition, nor does he claim any rights through inheritance. In fact, Mr. Gangadhara has only claimed occupancy rights over the first item in the petition schedule, which puts his claim in direct conflict with the interests of the deceased testator.
During Smt. Jayamma’s lifetime, she opposed Gangadhara’s claim. After Jayamma’s death smt. Meera filed a probate case for her mother-in-law’s Will case at the Civil Court at Bengaluru asking for a Letter of Administration regarding the Will executed by her mother-in-law (the Testator (Smt. Jayamma) on February 19, 2007 (case no. P & SC No.24/2021).
During the proceedings, a paper publication was issued, and since none of Smt. Jayamma’s legal heirs objected, the Trial Court moved forward to record evidence for Smt Meera. However before the court could pass the order, Mr. Gangadhara, who claimed to be a tenant of Smt. Jayamma’s land, filed a case under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to implead as party respondent to the probabte of will case in Bengaluru.
Smt. Meera opposed the application by filing a statement of objections. On October 28, 2025, Smt Meera won the case in the Karnataka High Court. Advocate Krishna Murthy T.R. represented her.
Also read: Govt scraps mandatory probate of wills: Is voluntary probate still a smart move?
Summary of the judgement
Bijal Ajinkya, Partner at Khaitan & Co, said to ET Wealth Online: “The case revolves around the probate of a will dated February 19, 2007, executed by Smt. Jayamma, which bequeathed two agricultural land parcels exclusively to the petitioner, her daughter-in-law, Smt. Meera.”
The respondent, Mr. Gangadhara, is a tenant claiming occupancy rights over one of the land parcels under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (via a pending Form No. 7A application before the Land Tribunal).
The petitioner (Smt Meera) initiated probate proceedings in the Bengaluru Civil Court, completed evidence and published notices without initial objections and the probate had reached the final stage.
The respondent (tenant, Gangadhara) then sought impleadment (that is, to be added as a party to the ongoing probate matter) arguing his occupancy claim could be prejudiced if the Letter of Administration / probate was granted, potentially allowing alienation of the property. The trial court allowed this. Notably, the deceased had previously opposed the respondent’s occupancy claim.
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioner (Smt. Meera) challenging order of the trial court allowing the impleadment in the probate and succession case.
Ajinkya said: “The core issue was whether the respondent, who was a mere tenant with no inheritance or kinship claim, qualified as a necessary party or caveator in the probate proceedings, such that his impleadment was justified.”
Also read: Tenants constructed two extra floors in rented property without consent; landlord wins eviction case in high court due to this reason
Why did the tenant (respondent) lose his case?
Ajinkya explains that the Karnataka High Court set aside the trial court’s orders and rejecting the respondent’s impleadment applications outright. The tenant lost primarily because:
- Lack of Caveatable Interest in probate of Will proceedings: Under probate law, a person seeking to intervene (as a caveator or via impleadment) must demonstrate a direct stake in the succession or inheritance process, and the grant of probate/letters of administration would defeat their claim under an alternative line of succession (eg, via kinship or competing will). The respondent’s claim was solely for statutory occupancy rights as a tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which is adversarial to the testator’s title but does not pertain to inheritance or succession. It could not “defeat” the will’s validity or the petitioner’s bequest, as it arises from tenancy statutes, not personal law or testamentary rights.
- No prejudice to inheritance rights: The court emphasized that the respondent’s pending Land Tribunal application (for occupancy) operates independently and does not intersect with the probate’s focus on validating the will and appointing an administrator. Granting letters / probate to the petitioner (Smt. Meera) would not automatically extinguish the tenant’s claim, and he remains free to pursue it separately against the estate’s administrator. Allowing impleadment would unduly complicate and delay probate proceedings by injecting it with a tenancy dispute.
- Adverse interest insufficient for party status: While the respondent (tenant, Gangadhara) argued potential prejudice (eg, risk of property alienation post-probate), the court held that mere adverse possession or tenancy claims do not confer “necessary party” status under succession suits. The testator herself had contested his occupancy during her lifetime, underscoring that the respondent’s interest was oppositional, not proprietary in the succession context.
Also read: Electricity can’t be denied to tenant due to landlord-tenant dispute and pending legal case, rules Delhi High Court
Karnataka High Court analysis and discussion
The Karnataka High Court in its judgement (case no. 2025:KHC:41807) dated October 28, 2025 said that a person, who claims interest adverse to the interest of the Will Testator cannot be allowed to come on record and oppose the Will executed by the Testator nor can such a person be considered as a person having caveatable interest.
Karnataka High Court said: “It is not the case of the respondent (Mr. Gangadhara) that he is an heir under succession who would be otherwise benefited if the Will were to be invalidated. A caveator or objector in a probate proceeding should be able to demonstrate that the claim made for grant of probate prejudices his right because it defeats some other line of succession under which the caveator/ objector asserts his right over the property which is the subject matter of the Will.”
The Karnataka High Court explained that whether the grant of probate or letter of administration would prejudice the right of the caveator/objector would be a parameter to consider whether the caveator/objector is a party, who needed to be heard in probate proceedings.
Karnataka High Court said: “If only the caveator/objector is in a position to show that if the grant of probate or letter of administration is made, it will defeat his claim of succession or inheritance to the estate of the deceased for the reason that it defeats some other line of succession, however small, the said interest may be, then it can be said that the caveator/objector is a necessary party to the probate proceedings.”
The will is not in dispute
In the present case, Mr. Gangadhara does not dispute that there is no kinship or that he is not entitled to inherit the property of the deceased.
Karnataka High Court said: “His only contention is that he has filed Form No.7A claiming occupancy rights of the land which is the subject matter of the Will and as stated earlier, the Testator Smt. Jayamma during her lifetime had opposed the grant of occupancy rights of the said land in favour of the respondent herein.”
Therefore, the Karnataka High Court said that they are of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in allowing the impleading application filed by the respondent (Mr. Gangadhara).
Karnataka High Court judgement
Order:
- The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.12.2023 passed on IA No.2 in P & SC No.24/2021 by the Court of LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set-aside and consequently, the prayers made in IA Nos.2 and 4 are rejected.
According to Ajinkya, the petitioner’s (Smt. Meera) writ petition was allowed and the trial court’s order of impleadment was quashed. The probate proceedings were to continue without the respondent’s (tenant, Gangadhara) involvement.
Also read: Landlord wins eviction case against tenant who stopped paying rent since 2014 and sub-let property in 2021: Himachal Pradesh High Court order
Ajinkya from Khaitan & Co says: “This ruling squarely aligns with established probate jurisprudence in India, particularly the requirement for caveators to show a tangible succession-related prejudice, and that tenants, lessees, licensees, or adverse claimants do not have caveatable interest. The decision does not introduce novel law but reinforces the ongoing approach to impleadment in probate, preventing forum shopping by tenants into succession suits, which is a recurring theme in Karnataka and other high courts handling land reform-tenancy overlaps.”
aniltikotekar4sme.com 