Bangalore District Court
J Ramamani vs Narayanamma on 23 April, 2025
KABC010146442019
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE : AT BANGALORE [CCH-42]
:PRESENT:
SMT. SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated this the 23rd day of April 2025
O.S.No.3328/2019
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Smt. J. Ramamani,
W/o Late B.K. Kumar,
D/o Late G. Janardhaa Swamy,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.44/2, 2nd Cross,
Nandadeep Layout
R.R. Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 098.
2. Smt. J. Vedamba,
D/o Late G. Janardhaa Swamy,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.322, 1st Block, 2nd Stage,
Nagarabhavi BDA Layout,
Bengaluru - 72.
(By Sri.K.V. Harish, Advocate)
O.S. No.3328/2019
2
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt. Narayanamma,
W/o Late G. Janardhaa Swamy,
Aged about 68 years.
2. Sri J. Srinivas,
S/o Late G. Janardhaa Swamy,
Aged about 44 years.
Both are
R/at No.68, 7th B Cross,
UAS Layout,
Near BSNL Telephone Exchange
Sanjaynagar,
Bengaluru - 560 094.
(D1- By Pleader Sri A.P.S..
D2 - DEAD)
Date of Institution of the Suit: 26.04.2019
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Suit for Declaration
declaration & possession, suit
for injunction)
Date of commencement of 24.02.2021
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 23.04.2025
was pronounced:
O.S. No.3328/2019
3
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
05 11 27
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for the following reliefs:
To declare that the release deed dated 20.12.2018 and gift deed dated 17.12.2018 are not binding on the plaintiffs and to grant such other reliefs the court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as under:
The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the daughters of late G. Janardhana Swamy. It is the case of the plaintiff that they are the absolute owners of the immovable residential house baring site No.68 formed in UAS Employees House Building Co-operative Society, Bengaluru and site No.4 formed in O.S. No.3328/2019 4 sy.no.39 of Gangenahalli Village, described as item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint.
According to the plaintiffs during the lifetime of their father, he had acquired the suit schedule properties under the registered sale deeds dated 26.03.1979 and 11.04.1979 and during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiffs, he had executed a registered final Will dated 16.04.2001 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties and the Will was registered before the Sub-Registrar. Later on the father of the plaintiffs passed away on 07.11.2005 and after the demise the Will has come into force and the suit properties have been acquired by the plaintiffs.It is further pleaded by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are collecting the rents accrued out of the suit schedule properties and the defendants do not have any right over the same. Further, the plaintiffs have stated that they have already obtained revenue records into their names O.S. No.3328/2019 5 from their father on the basis of the Will. But, it is averred that on enquiry it was realized that the defendant No.1 had executed release deed and gift deed in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule properties without any right, title and interest or possession. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that these documents were created by the defendant No.2 by misusing the illiteracy of the 1st defendant and had illegally obtained the registered release deed and gift deed as aforesaid.
The plaintiffs have further pleaded that as per the Will the suit schedule properties have been bequeathed in favour of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and they are in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and when the plaintiffs questioned the illegal conduct of the defendants and requested to reconvey the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs by executing necessary documents, the defendants O.S. No.3328/2019 6 postponed the same on one or the other pretext. It is averred that all the revenue records are standing in the name of the plaintiffs and they are collecting the rents from the tenants and despite the same, the defendant No.2 is asserting his right on the basis of the impugned documents herein. Hence, having no other alternative the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for the above said reliefs.
3. Initially in response to the suit summons, the defendant No.1 remained absent and he was placed ex-parte as per order sheet dated 12.07.2019. Thereafter the learned counsel Sri APS filed I.A. under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. and filed vakalath for defendant No.1. The said I.A. was not objected by the plaintiffs' side and hence, I.A. was allowed and the order of placing the defendant No.1 exparte was set aside. The O.S. No.3328/2019 7 defendant no.1 was permitted to come on record and contest the case on merits.
The defendant No.2 though appeared through counsel has not filed the written-statement and therefore, the written- statement of the defendant No.2 was taken as not filed on 14.08.2019.
Thereafter, the defendant No.1 has filed her written- statement on 13.12.2019. The contentions taken by the defendant No.1 in her written-statement run as follows:
The defendant No.1 in the written-statement although has admitted that the suit schedule properties were acquired by her husband Janardhana Swamy, but has taken up the specific contention that her husband was not taken care by the plaintiffs or by the 2nd defendant and he was continuously harassed by them for the sake of property by holding life threats . Hence, he has even caused a legal notice through O.S. No.3328/2019 8 his advocate to his children on 27.12.2000 and therefore, the Will deed executed on 16.04.2001 bequeathing the properties in favour of the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant was executed under enormous threat given by the plaintiffs and not out of free consent.
It is further pleaded in Para No.19 of the written- statement that the husband of the defendant No.1 had executed a codicil dated 31.03.2003 wherein he has modified the earlier Will dated 16.04.2001 by giving life interest to the 1st defendant including the right to alienate the suit properties. It is averred that with execution of the codicil in favour of the first defendant, the defendant No.1 has become the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties on the demise of her husband . In furtherance of the same she has obtained kathas of the said properties and started collecting rents from the tenants. The defendant no.1 has O.S. No.3328/2019 9 contended that she has executed the gift deed in respect of item No.1 and release deed in respect of item No.2 in favour of her son i.e. defendant No.2 but on account of the objections filed by the plaintiffs before BBMP, the process of katha transfer on the basis of the gift deed and release deed are pending. The defendant no.1 has disputed the ownership of the plaintiffs on account of the execution of the codicil dated 31.03.2003, by virtue of which she became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. With these contentions the defendant No.1 has prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the defendant No.2 has died on 29.01.2025 and therefore, the suit against the defendant No.2 is abated.
4. On the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:
O.S. No.3328/2019 10
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove their ownership and lawful possession in the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that their father executed Will dated 16.04.2001 in their favour with respect to suit property?
3. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the release deed dated 20.12.2018 and gift deed dated 17.12.2018 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 are without right and title and not binding on the plaintiffs?
4. Whether the defendant proves that her husband executed Codicil dated 31.03.2003 in her favour with respect to suit property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
6. What order or decree?
5. In order to prove the case, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have got examined themselves as Pws.1 and 2 respectively O.S. No.3328/2019 11 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.7 and closed their side.
5.1 Inspite of opportunities, the defendant No.1 has not cross examined the PW.2 nor led any independent evidence. Hence, the evidence of the defendant No.1 was taken as nil on 09.04.2025 and the matter was posted for arguments.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The arguments of learned counsel for the defendant no.1 is taken as nil on 21.04.2025. Perused the records.
7. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue Nos.12,& 4 - In the Negative Issue. No. 3 - Does not arise for consideration O.S. No.3328/2019 12 Issue No.5 - As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE Nos.1 TO 3 :- It is the specific case of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 who are the daughters of late G. Janardhana Swamy that they are the absolute owners of the immovable residential house baring site No.68 formed in UAS Employees House Building Co-operative Society, Bengaluru and site No.4 formed in sy.no.39 of Gangenahalli Village, described as item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs during the lifetime of their father, he had acquired the suit schedule properties under the registered sale deeds dated 26.03.1979 and 11.04.1979 and during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiffs, he had executed a registered final Will dated 16.04.2001 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties and the Will was registered before the Sub-
O.S. No.3328/2019 13 Registrar. Later on the father of the plaintiffs passed away on 07.11.2005 and after the demise the Will has come into force and the plaintiffs have become the absolute owners of the suit properties.
9. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs are collecting the rents accrued out of the suit schedule properties and the defendants do not have any right over the same.
10. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have already obtained revenue records into their names from their father on the basis of the Will. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 has executed registered release deed and gift deed in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule properties without any right, title and interest or possession. These O.S. No.3328/2019 14 documents were created by the defendant No.2 by misusing the illiteracy of the 1st defendant and had illegally obtained the registered release deed and gift deed as aforesaid.
11. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that as per the Will the suit schedule properties have been bequeathed in favour of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and they are in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and when the plaintiffs questioned the illegal conduct of the defendants and requested to reconvey the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs by executing necessary documents, the defendants postponed the same on one or the other pretext.
12. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, initially the plaintiff No.1 had adduced her evidence as PW.1 on 24.02.2021 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.7. Thereafter, when the matter was posted for cross-
O.S. No.3328/2019 15 examination, the learned counsel for the plaintiff No.2 filed I.A.NO.1/2024 to discard the evidence of PW.1 and permit the plaintiff No.2 to lead evidence as PW.2. Thereafter, by the order dated 06.07.2024, the plaintiff No.2 was accorded with permission to lead evidence in the above case, subject to the condition that she should not overcome the admissions of PW.1 and the prayer to discard the evidence of PW.1 was rejected. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.2 has filed her evidence affidavit and subjected herself to the cross-examination on 03.08.2024. But despite grant of sufficient opportunities, the learned counsel for the defendant no.1 did not cross-examine PW.2. Therefore, the matter was posted for defendant evidence on 21.09.2024.
13. The defendants were provided with sufficient opportunities from 15.10.2024 till 09.04.2025. But the O.S. No.3328/2019 16 defendant No.1 has not led her evidence. Thereafter, this court by taking the evidence as nil has heard the arguments of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 has not appeared before the court to address the arguments on his side. The defendant No.2 is placed exparte. It was later on reported that defendant no.2 had passed away during the pendency of the suit.
14. The defendant No.1 in the written-statement although has admitted that the suit schedule properties were acquired by her husband Janardhana Swamy and has further pleaded that her husband has constructed the buildings in the suit schedule properties, but she has taken up the specific contention that her husband was neglected and harassed by the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant. It is averred that the plaintiffs and second defendant were holding life threats O.S. No.3328/2019 17 to her husband for the sake of property and therefore in this regard he has even caused a legal notice through his advocate to his children on 27.12.2000. It is contended that the Will deed executed on 16.04.2001 bequeathing the properties in favour of the plaintiffs and the 2 nd defendant was executed under enormous threat held by the plaintiffs.
15. It is further pleaded in para no.19 of the written- statement that the husband of the defendant No.1 had executed a codicil dated 31.03.2003 wherein he has modified the earlier Will dated 16.04.2001 by bequeathing the suit properties to the 1st defendant and on execution of the said codicil, the defendant No.1 has become the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties on the demise of her husband, she has obtained kathas of the said properties and started collecting rents from the tenants. The defendant no.1 has O.S. No.3328/2019 18 contended that she has executed the gift deed in respect of item No.1 and release deed in respect of item No.2 in favour of her son i.e. defendant No.2 and on account of the objections filed by the plaintiffs before BBMP, the process of katha transfer on the basis of the gift deed and release deed are pending. The defendant no.1 has disputed the ownership of the plaintiffs on account of the execution of the codicil dated 31.03.2003, by virtue of which she became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties.
16. On a careful perusal of the materials on record it is evident that there is no dispute with the relationship of the parties or the acquisition of the suit properties by Jananrdhan Swamy under the sale deeds at Ex.P2 and P3. However when the written-statement averments of the defendant no.1 are taken into consideration, it is apparent O.S. No.3328/2019 19 that the defendant No.1 has categorically stated that the Will at Ex.P4 was executed by her husband Janardhana Swamy was a result of force and coercion. According to the defendant No.1, her husband had executed earlier Will dated 25.01.1996 and the subsequent Will dated 16.04.2001 only on account of the enormous threat held by the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant and the act of execution of the Will was not voluntary .In this context it is profitable to refer to Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023(Herein after referred as BSA Act) and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Section 67 of the BSA Act reads as under;
Section 67: If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a O.S. No.3328/2019 20 will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, (16 of 1908) unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.
Section 63:Execution of unprivileged Wills.-- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:--
(a)The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.(b)The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.(c)The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.
17. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a O.S. No.3328/2019 21 Will in a Court of law In this context it is beneficial to refer to the judgment in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SUPREME COURT 443, wherein It is held that "The party propounding a will or otherwise making a claim under a will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, reference must inevitably be made to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under S. 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Ss. 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a Court of law. Similarly, Ss. 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Thus the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any other O.S. No.3328/2019 22 document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by S. 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters."
18. In view of the above statutory mandate and the principles laid down in the above judgment, a document like a Will has to necessarily attested in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and proved in accordance with Section 67 of the BSA Act. There is no statutory exemption granted to a Will even if the will is a registered document and the parties relying on the Will have to necessarily examine at least one attesting witness to prove its execution.
19. Registration of Will is a piece of evidence confirming its genuineness and but it does not dispense with the mode of proof required under Section 67 of the BSA Act.
O.S. No.3328/2019 23 The bar placed under Section 67 of the BSA clearly indicates that unless one of the attesting witnesses is examined the Will cannot be used as evidence. In this context it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Rani Purnima Devi and another v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev and another AIR 1962 SUPREME COURT 567, wherein it is held that:
'if a will has been registered, that is a circumstance which may, having regard to the circumstances, prove its genuineness. But the mere fact that a will is registered will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists, without submitting the evidence of registration to a close examination. If the evidence as to registration on a close examination reveals that the registration was made in such a manner that it was brought home to the testator that the document of which he was admitting execution was a will disposing of his property and thereafter he admitted its execution and signed it in token thereof, the registration will dispel the doubt as to the genuineness of the will. But if the evidence as to registration shows that it was done in a perfunctory manner, that the officer registering the will did not read it over to the testator or did not bring home to him that he was O.S. No.3328/2019 24 admitting the execution of a will or did not satisfy himself in some other way (as, for example, by seeing the testator reading the will) that the testator knew that it was a will the execution of which he was admitting, the fact that the will was registered would not be of much value. It is not unknown that registration may take place without the executant really knowing what he was registering. Law reports are full of cases in which registered wills have not been acted upon (see' for example, Vellasaway Sarvai v. L. Sivaraman Servai, (1) Surendra Nath Lahiri v. Jnanendra Nath Lahiri ( 2 )and Girji Datt Singh v. Gangotri Datt Singh)(3).
Therefore, the mere fact of registration may not by itself be enough to dispel all suspicion that may attach to the execution and attestation of a will; though the fact that there has been registration would be an important circumstance in favour of the will being genuine if the evidence as to registration establishes that the testator admitted the execution of the will after knowing that it was a will the execution of which he was admitting.
20. Therefore from the above judgment it is clear that mere fact of registration may not by itself be enough to dispel all suspicion that may attach to the execution and attestation of a will and the fact that there has been registration would be O.S. No.3328/2019 25 an important circumstance in favour of the will . In the above case the plaintiffs No.1 and 2, who have examined themselves as Pws.1 and 2 have not summoned the attesting witnesses to the Will referred in the registered Will at Ex.P4. No attempt is made by the plaintiffs to prove that the impugned Will was executed when the father of the plaintiffs was in sound disposing state of mind. In the above case despite the defendant No.1 taking up the contention that the Will at Ex.P4 was executed under threat the plaintiffs have not endeavored to summon the attesting witnesses to the Will to prove that the Will in terms of the above principles laid down in the above judgment by proving that the Will was duly signed by the father of the plaintiffs, the testator at the time of signing the Will was in a sound and disposing state of mind;the had testator understood the nature and effect of the dispositions;d)that the testator had put his signature on O.S. No.3328/2019 26 the document of his own free will and lastly;e)the Will is free from suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.
21. It is relevant to note that Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam 2023 provides : Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person, while Section 105 of the said Act provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. In the background of the above provisions of law, it was mandatory on part of the plaintiffs to prove their legal right arising of the registered Will by complying the O.S. No.3328/2019 27 provisions of Section 67 of the BSA Act. Here it is not the case of the plaintiffs that that the attesting witnesses to the Will are not alive or they are not subject to process of the court so as to seek exemption. In the absence of pleading any exemption the proof of Will in accordance with Section 67 of the BSA cannot be dispensed. Therefore the plaintiffs have failed to comply the statutory mandate under Section 67 of the BSA Act . Hence it cannot be held that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property on the basis of the Will dated 16.04.2001. Even other wise the plaintiffs have not produced any material evidence to establish that the Will executed by their father was acted upon and their names were entered in the revenue records and they were collected rents from the suit properties. No revenue records, tax paid receipts, electricity bills and receipts are produced to demonstrate the actual possession of the O.S. No.3328/2019 28 plaintiffs. The Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Amin Lal in SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 dtd 19.11.2024 has held that revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence. Therefore in this context the production of the revenue documents become crucial and fundamental to decide the claim of ownership and possession and the plaintiff cannot seek dispensation to produce the same on the ground that revenue documents do not confer title or have presumptive value. Therefore when the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership and possession over the suit properties,the question of O.S. No.3328/2019 29 considering the validity of the release deed dated 20.12.2018 and gift deed dated 17.12.2018 executed by the first defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant does not arise at all. Hence, Issue Nos.1 & 2 are answered in the negative and issue no. 3 is answered as does not arise for consideration
22. ISSUE No.4 :- It is the case of the first defendant that subsequent to the execution of the registered will at Ex.P4, her husband Janardhan Swamy has executed a codicil on 13.3.2003 modifying the terms of the registered Will at Ex.P4 by conferring absolute right, title and interest in respect of all the properties in favour of the first defendant. It is also her case that the registered Will at Ex.P4 was executed by Janardhan Swamy under the threat of his children and therefore it was subsequently modified under the codicil. But O.S. No.3328/2019 30 the defendant has not entered the witness box to prove the execution of the codicil dated 31.03.2003 or to prove her assertion that the Will at Ex.P4 was executed under threat . Mere taking up the contention regarding execution of the codicil by itself would not be sufficient to prove the same. In the case of Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore vs. S.Mani, (2005) 5 SCC 100 it is held that mere pleadings of a party cannot be treated as substitute for proof. It is equally well settled that if a party withholds from court the best evidence or some material evidence (document) or witness, adverse presumption against such party can be drawn u/s. Section 119 of the BSA Act (The erstwhile Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act , 1872).Under Section 106 of the BSA Act the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any O.S. No.3328/2019 31 particular person. Therefore the burden of the proof of the facts asserted in the written statement was on the first defendant to prove the same but the first defendant has failed to substantiate the same either by eliciting the said facts from the plintiffs or by independent evidence. In the case of proof of Will, if a party pleads coercion, then the burden is on him to prove the same. In this regard,the decision of Apex Court reported in AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 300 "Savithri vs. Karthyayani Amma" is relevant,wherein at para No.15, it is held that:
"We may, however, notice that according to the appellants themselves, the signature of the testator on the Will was obtained under undue influence or coercion. The onus to prove the same was on them. They have failed to do so. If the propounder proves that the Will was signed by the testator and he at the relevant time was in sound disposing state of mind and understood the nature O.S. No.3328/2019 32 and effect of disposition, the onus stands discharged." In the above case the defendant no.1 having taken the contention that the registered will at EX.P4 was executed under threat and therefore the testator had modified the terms of the Will under a codicil 13.3.2003 modifying the terms of the registered Will at Ex.P4 has not discharged the burden by leading evidence or cross examination of PW1. Therefore on account of the failure of the first defendant to prove issue no.4, Issue No.4 is answered in the Negative.
23. ISSUE No.5 :- In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
Considering the relationship between the parties, no order as to costs.
O.S. No.3328/2019 33 Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Senior Shirestedar (Stenographer Grade-I), transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rd day of April 2025).
(SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI) XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 - Smt. J. Ramamani - 24.02.2021 P.W.2 - Smt. Vedamba - 03.08.2024
b) Defendants' side: NIL II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 -- Genealogy
Ex.P.2 -- Certified copy of sale deed dated
11.04.1974
Ex.P.3 -- Certified copy of sale deed dated
24.03.1979
O.S. No.3328/2019
34
Ex.P.4 -- Certified copy of Will dated 16.04.2001
Ex.P.5 -- Certified copy of release deed dated
20.12.2018
Ex.P.6 - Certified copy of gift deed dated
17.12.2018
Ex.P.7 - Encumbrance certificate
b)Defendants' side : NIL
(SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI)
XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S. No.3328/2019 35