Bangalore District Court
Prabhavathi vs Ramesh Babu on 22 April, 2026
KABC010139712010
IN THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCH-31)
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
Sri. MADHU N.R., LL.M.,
XXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.2996/2010
PLAINTIFF: Smt. Prabhavati
D/o Late S.Srinivas
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.125,
Sree Rama Temple Street,
2nd Cross, Jeevanahalli,
Cox Town,
Bangalore-560 005.
(By Sri.G.D.Aswathanarayana,
Advocate)
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Ramesh Babu
S/o Late S.Srinivas
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.18, 5th Cross,
2nd Main, Hosahalli,
2 O.S.No.2996/2010
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore.
2. Jayaraj
S/o Late S.Srinivas
Aged about 34 years,
R/at No.88, 2nd Main,
Govindarajanagar,
Diagonally Opp. to Raheja Park,
Magadi Main Road,
Bangalore-560 040.
3. The Manager
Janata Seva Co-operative Bank
Ltd., RPC Layout,
Vijayanagar II Stage,
Bangalore.
4. The Manager
Vijaya Bank,
K.B.Sangha Building 3rd Main,
3rd Cross, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore.
5. Smt. Shobhavati
D/o Late S.Srinivas
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.29,
Kempapura Agrahara,
Marenahalli,
Bangalore-560 040.
(By Sri.H.S.R, Advocate for D1,D2
Sri.M.P.S., Advocate for D3
Sri.M.O.A/P.H, Advocate for D9,
Sri.V., Advocate for D4
Sri.K.B.W, Advocate for D5 )
Date of Institution of the suit 24-04-2010
3 O.S.No.2996/2010
Nature of the suit Suit for Declaration & Partition
Date of Commencement of 01-08-2011
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 22-04-2026
Pronounced
Duration Years Months Days
16 - 02
(MADHU N.R.)
XXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
*****
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking judgment and decree of partition and separate possession of 1/4th share each in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds, to appoint a Commissioner and direct him to separate the share of the plaintiffs of the schedule properties and for mesne profits.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under :-
It is submitted that, plaintiff is the daughter and defendants are the sons of Late S.Srinivas and Late Nanjamma and they constitute an undivided Hindu joint 4 O.S.No.2996/2010 family. The schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. The said Late S.Srinvas, the father of plaintiff and defendants and one Krishnappa, Seetharam, Lokesh, Chinnamma, Kamalamma, Savithramma and Saraswathi are the children of Late Subbanna. Further submits that, the schedule 'A' properties were acquired by late Srinivas by way of release deed executed in between Late Srinivas and other family members of Subbanna. The schedule 'A' properties were earlier acquired by the Late Subbanna, the grandfather of plaintiffs and defendants and the schedule 'B' properties were acquired by late Nanjamma, the mother of plaintiffs and defendants by way of Gift Deed executed by Seetharam.
The schedule properties as described in the plaint is as below :
'A' SCHEDULE PROPERTIES Item No.1 :
All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Municipal No.18/1, P.I.D No.34-29-18/1, old No.272, formed in Sy.No.26/761 situated at 2 nd Main Road, Hosahalli village, Vijayanagar, 5 O.S.No.2996/2010 Bangalore measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 90 feet and bounded on :
East by : Road West by : Parvathamma's property No.425 North by : Road South by : Private property bearing No.18 Item No.2 :
All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Municipal No.18, P.I.D No.34-29-18/1, situated at 2nd Main Road, Hosahalli village, Vijayanagar, Bangalore measuring East to West 34 feet and North to South 15 feet and bounded on :
East by : Road West by : Property No.401/22 belonging to Nagaraj North by : Private property bearing No.18/1 South by : Road Item No.3 :
All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Municipal No.2, P.I.D No.40-125-2, old Nos.24 & 25, formed in Sy.No.366/1 of Marenahalli, Kempapura Dhakle, situated at 7th cross, Subbanna Garden, Bangalore, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 60 feet and bounded on :
East by : Site Nos.40 & 41
6 O.S.No.2996/2010
West by : Road
North by : Site No.23
South by : Site No.26
Item No.4 :
All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Municipal No.49, P.I.D No.40-125-49, site No.10, formed in Sy.No.367/3, Marenahalli Village, Kempapura Dhakle, situated at 7th cross, Subbanna Garden, Bangalore measuring East to West 54 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on :
East by : Road West by : Park North by : Road South by : Property of Manjunath Item No.5 :
All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Site No.6, formed in Sy.No.365, Marenahalli, Kempapura Agarahara Dhakle, Bangalore measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on :
East by : Road
West by : Private property
North by : Site No.7
South by : Road
7 O.S.No.2996/2010
'B' SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
1. Fixed Deposits amount worth Rs.15,00,000/-
kept in Janata Seva Co-operative Bank Ltd., RPC Layout, Vijayanagar II Stage, Bangalore in SB A/c No.15001.
2. Jewels worth Rs.5,00,000/- in Vijaya Bank, K.B.Sangha Building, 3rd Main, 3rd Cross, Vijayanagar, Bangalore, kept in safe custody locker No.106.
2(a). It is further submitted that, the revenue entries of schedule properties were made in the name of Late S.Srinivas and he died on 09.02.2010. Further, the mother of plaintiff died four years back. During the lifetime of Late Srinivas, he was the kartha of the joint family. Further, the income derived from the schedule properties has been invested for the improvement of schedule properties. Therefore, the schedule properties are the joint and ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff is coparcener and entitled for a share in the schedule properties. However, the defendants have not effected the 8 O.S.No.2996/2010 partition by demarcating the plaintiff's share as per the demand of plaintiff. The plaintiffs also convened a panchayat and demanded for partition. Though the plaintiff is entitled for a share, the defendants are intending to deny their share in the schedule properties. 2(b). It is further submitted that, during the lifetime of Late S.Srinivas, he was managing the family. The schedule properties are let out for residential and commercial purposes and huge rents are being collected from the same and the same is invested for improvement of the schedule properties, purchase of jewels kept in bank locker and also deposited in various banks by way of fixed deposits. Further, it is learnt that defendants have entered their names in the revenue records claiming to be the only legal heirs of Late S.Srinivas. Though huge income has been derived as such, it has not been appropriated for the better management of the properties. Further, the plaintiffs have requested the concerned banks not to release the funds and jewels that has been deposited in the banks by late S.Srinivas.
9 O.S.No.2996/2010
2(c). The plaintiff further submits, the plaintiff and defendants constitute an undivided Hindu joint family and the schedule properties are the joint family properties and there is no partition in the family of the plaintiff and defendants. Further submits that, the defendants have started alienating the schedule properties having no independent interest in this regard. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the relief of partition.
3. The summons were duly served upon the defendants. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement have contended that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Further, denied all the material averments in the plaint except the admitted facts. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between plaintiff and defendants. However, denies that suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. Further submits that, during the lifetime of their parents, they performed the marriage of plaintiff by spending lakhs of 10 O.S.No.2996/2010 rupees and also for gold ornaments and sites were given to plaintiffs. The defendants submits that a site bearing PID No.35-36-48 situated at Marenahalli Village, II Cross, Subbanna Garden, Bangalore measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 50 feet was purchased under the agreement of sale dated 24.11.1997 from one Raghavendra Rao for valuable consideration of Rs.4,29,000/- and also obtained power of attorney on the same day. The father of plaintiff also obtained power of attorney and agreement of sale from one Dinakar in respect of site bearing No.9, formed in Sy.No.365, situated at Kempapura Agrahara, Marenahalli Extension, Bangalore measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 15 feet on 24.11.1997. Further, on the strength of these power of attorneys, he has executed a registered sale deeds in favour of his daughter, the 1st plaintiff herein on 25.02.2002 and 24.11.1997. The mother of plaintiffs had also executed a registered sale deed in favour of 2nd plaintiff (5th defendant) and her husband in respect of site bearing No.7, formed in Sy.No.365 under a registered sale deed dated 14.06.1996 at Marenahalli 11 O.S.No.2996/2010 Extension, Bangalore measuring East to West 41 feet and North to South 30 feet in favour of 2nd plaintiff. 3(a). It is further submitted that, the 1st plaintiff was ousted out from the family of defendants on 03.05.1996 and the 2nd plaintiff (5th defendant) on 20.02.1994. Hence, they are not the joint family members and not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties. Further submits that, the item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is self- acquired property of father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and in turn he has executed a registered Will dated 24.09.2009 bequeathing the said property in favour of 1st defendant and on the death of his father, the 1st defendant became the absolute owner and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the said properties. The father of 1 st and 2nd defendants has also bequeathed item No.3 of the suit 'A' property and the portion of item No.1 of the 'B' schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant under the said registered Will. The remaining half portion in item No.1 of the 'B' schedule property was bequeathed in favour of 1st defendant.
12 O.S.No.2996/20103(b). It is further submitted that, the item No.2 of the suit 'A' schedule property was purchased by plaintiff's mother, Nanjamma under a registered sale deed dated 24.09.1979 and subsequently, on 12.04.2006, she executed a Will in favour of her husband Srinivas bequeathing the same in his favour with a condition that he can enjoy the said property during his lifetime and on his death, her two sons are entitled for the said property. After the death of Nanjamma, her husband Srinivas became the owner and subsequently, he had executed a registered Will dated 24.09.2009 bequeathing the item No.2 in schedule 'A' property in favour of defendant No.1. Further submits that, the item No.3 of suit schedule property originally belongs to one Lokesh and the said Lokesh executed a registered Gift Deed dated 07.03.1980 in favour of father of defendant. Though the father of defendant paid consideration, he executed Gift Deed instead of Sale deed. Hence, the item No.3 of schedule property is self-acquired property of father of defendant. The said Srinivas, the father of defendant executed registered Will dated 24.09.2009 bequeathing the said 13 O.S.No.2996/2010 property in favour of 2nd defendant. On the death of late Srinivas, the 2nd defendant became the absolute owner and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the said property.
3(c). It is submitted that, the item No.4 of the suit 'A' schedule property originally belongs to one Chowdamma and she executed registered Gift Deed dated 16.11.979 in favour of late Srinivas. Thereafter, the said Srinivas, father of defendant executed a registered Will dated 10.11.2009 in respect of the said property in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 equally and the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the said property. Further submits that, the item No.1 of the 'B' schedule property originally belongs to one Seetharam and he executed registered Gift Deed dated 10.04.1981 in favour of Nanjamma, the mother of defendant Nos.1 and 2. In the said Gift Deed there was mistake in measurement and it was rectified vide registered Rectification Deed dated 15.04.1995. Thereafter, Nanjamma had executed a Will dated 12.04.2006 in favour of Srinivas, the father of defendant and the said Srinivas bequeathed 14 O.S.No.2996/2010 the said property vide Will dated 24.09.2009 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 equally. On the death of Nanjamma and Srinivas, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 became the absolute owners of item No.1 of 'B' schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the said properties.
3(d). It is submitted that, the FD amounts mentioned in the schedule property amounting to Rs.15.00 lakhs is absolutely false and an amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs was deposited by way of FD in Janatha Seva Co-operative Bank and the 1st defendant is the nominee of the said FD and after the death of Srinivas, the father of defendant, the 1 st defendant received the entire amount from the bank. Further item No.2 of the 'B' schedule properties, the Manager is not permitting the defendant to operate the locker. However, in view of the Will executed by father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 dated 10.11.2009, the articles kept in locker No.106 is bequeathed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs have already taken their shares. 15 O.S.No.2996/2010 Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the said properties and prays to dismiss the suit.
4. The plaintiffs have filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is submitted that, there is no Will executed by the father and mother of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 12.04.2006 and 24.09.2009 as contended in the written statement. The defendants have concocted the said Wills in order to gain wrongfully. Infact the parents of plaintiff and defendants were not healthy and father of plaintiff was admitted to Spandana Hospital, Rajajinagara, Bengaluru. The defendants have got executed the said Wills by taking undue advantage of their ill-health. Further submits that, father and mother of plaintiff and defendants have no absolute right and title to execute the said wills in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of schedule properties, as the same are joint family properties. Moreover, the acquisition of the schedule properties was from the income of joint family. Hence, they do not have any right to 16 O.S.No.2996/2010 bequeath the schedule properties by way of Wills in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2.
5. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed additional written statement and deny that plaintiff and defendants constitute undivided joint family as after the marriage of plaintiff and defendant No.5, they have received their share and settled with their family of husbands respectively and they are ousted from the family of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Further, the item No.1 of the 'A' schedule property was inherited by the plaintiff's father and he had constructed a house and until his death he was residing in the said house and after his death, the defendant No.1 is in possession of the same. Hence, the item No.1 in 'A' schedule property is a dwelling house and female members are not entitled for a share in the said property. Further, it is denied that land bearing Sy.No.364 to an extent of 1 acre situated at Kempapura Agrahara was allotted to the father of the plaintiff and he formed a layout and sold the sites to several purchasers and out of the income derived out of sale proceeds, the item Nos.2 to 4 were purchased in the name 17 O.S.No.2996/2010 of their father and mother. Therefore, defendants prays to dismiss the suit.
6. The defendant No.3 has filed written statement and contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed in limine. Further, the defendant No.3 denies all the material averments made in the plaint except the admitted facts. Further submits that, there is no cause of action against this defendant as he has already transferred the fixed deposits to SB Account No.15001 of late Srinivas and 1st, 2nd defendant beings sons of late Srinivas as per the registered Will dated 24.09.2009 executed by late Srinivas which was produced by defendant nos.1 and 2 and they also executed authorization letter dated 28.02.2010, application by heirs for payment and affidavit/declaration dated 09.02.2010 in favour of 3rd defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against 3 rd defendant.
7. The defendant No.5 has filed written statement and a memo to adopt the additional written statement of 18 O.S.No.2996/2010 defendant Nos.1 and 2 and contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Further, admits the relationship between herself and the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. However, denies that plaintiff and defendants constitute an undivided joint family and the schedule properties are joint family proprieties. Further submits that, the plaintiff is making some false claim against defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendant further submits that, at the time of filing of the suit, at the instigation of her sister Prabhavthi, she had signed the case papers and she did not have any personal interest in the suit, the plaintiff asked her to put signature on case papers. Accordingly, she has put her signature.
7(a). It is further submitted that, during the lifetime of father and mother of plaintiff, defendant Nos.1,2 and 5, they had performed the marriage of plaintiff and herself by spending lakhs of rupees and also gifted gold ornaments worth Rs.1,60,000/- in the year 1986 and 1994 respectively. Further, they had also given two sites bearing PID No.35-36-48 situated at Marenahalli II Cross, 19 O.S.No.2996/2010 Subbanna Garden, Bangalore measuring a total extent of 2000 Sq.ft., under the registered sale deed dated 25.02.2002 and a site bearing No.9 formed in Sy.No.365, situated at Kempapura Agrahara, Marenahalli Extension, Bangalore measuring an extent of 500 ft., under registered sale deed dated 24.11.1997 to plaintiff and the plaintiff has not paid any consideration in respect of those properties. Further, the mother of plaintiff and defendants had given a site bearing No.7, formed in Sy.No.365 under a registered sale deed dated 14.06.1996 at Marenahalli Extension, Bangalore, measuring East to West 41 feet and North to South 30 feet in the name of this defendant No.5, her husband and also her father had constructed a house by spending their hard earned money on the said property where defendant No.5 has been residing alongwith her husband and children.
7(b). It is further submitted that, the father of plaintiff and defendant had given the suit schedule properties to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 by way of Will dated 24.09.2009 and 10.11.2009 and as such the defendant No.5 has no claim 20 O.S.No.2996/2010 over the said properties. Hence, there are no properties available for partition and in view of the Will executed by their father, herself and defendant No.1 are the sole and absolute owners in respect of the suit schedule properties and the suit schedule properties are not the joint family properties. Hence, she has no claim over the suit schedule properties. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.
8. Further, the defendant No.5 has filed written statement by way of counterclaim and admitted the facts of plaint averments. It is admitted that, this defendant, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 constitute undivided Hindu joint family and schedule properties are the joint family properties and there is no partition in their family. However, submits that the gift deed executed in favour of Sri.Srinivas and Nanjamma, the father and mother of plaintiff and defendants are by paying consideration to the donors. Hence, it is stated that the income derived from the joint family properties were invested in purchasing the other items except item No.1 of the 'A' schedule property. It is also admitted that, this defendant and plaintiff demanded 21 O.S.No.2996/2010 for partition, but the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have refused the same and intending to deny their share in the schedule properties. Further submits that, this defendant is entitled for 1/4th share in respect of the schedule properties as the same is joint family properties. The Wills claimed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the wills under the eye of law as the father and mother of this defendant did not derive any independent right to execute the said and also they did not have any intention to bequeath the said properties in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 excluding the daughters. Hence, prays to decree the suit by allotting her 1/4th share in the schedule properties by metes and bounds and also conduct the inquiry regarding mesne profits in respect of the schedule properties. Further, it is noted that, the plaintiff No.2 transposed as defendant No.5 as per order dated 26.08.2013.
9. On the basis of the above rival pleadings, the learned predecessor in office has framed the the following Issues :-
22 O.S.No.2996/2010
1) Whether defendant No.1 proves that their mother late Smt.Nanjamma by executing a Will dated 12.04.2006 had bequeathed item No.2 of suit schedule 'A' property in their favour, giving life interest to their father ?
2) Whether defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that their father late Sri.Srinivas by executing a registered Will dated 24.09.2009 had bequeathed item Nos.1 and 2 of suit schedule 'A' property in favour of defendant No.1 and item No.3 of suit schedule 'A' property and remaining half portion of suit schedule 'B' property in favour of defendant No.2 ?
3) Whether defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that their father late Sri.Srinivas by executing a Will Deed dated 10.11.2009 had bequeathed item No.4 of suit schedule 'A' property and the moveables kept by him in locker No.106 with Vijaya Bank, in their favour ?
4) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to a share in suit schedule properties and if so to what share and in which of the suit schedule properties ?
5) Whether Court fee paid by plaintiffs on their plaint is proper and sufficient ?
6) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought for ?
7) What decree or order ?
23 O.S.No.2996/2010
10. In support of plaintiff's case, the plaintiff has filed chief affidavit and examined herself as PW-1 and marked documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.55. On the otherhand, the defendants have examined as DW-1 to DW-5 and marked documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.73. The Assistant Director, FSL is examined as CW-1 and marked documents at Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.6.
11. Heard arguments on both the sides. Perused the material available on record.
12. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1: In the Negative Issue No.2 : In the Negative Issue No.3 : In the Negative Issue No.4 : Partly in Affirmative Issue No.5 : In the Affirmative Issue No.6 : Partly in Affirmative Issue No.7 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
13. Brief facts of the case are as under: This is a suit instituted by the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate 24 O.S.No.2996/2010 possession of their alleged 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds, appointment of a Court Commissioner for effecting partition, and for mesne profits.
14. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the daughter and sons of late Sri.S.Srinivas and late Smt.Nanjamma, who constituted a Hindu undivided joint family. It is their contention that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties, some of which are stated to have been derived from the grand-father late Subbanna and subsequently augmented by joint family income. It is further pleaded that the properties continued to remain undivided, that the plaintiffs are coparceners, and that despite repeated demands and a panchayat being convened, the defendants failed to effect partition. It is also alleged that the defendants are attempting to alienate the properties and are wrongfully denying the plaintiffs their legitimate share. Accordingly, the plaintiffs seek partition and separate possession along with enquiry into mesne profits.
25 O.S.No.2996/2010
15. The defendants, on the otherhand, have denied that the suit properties are joint family properties. It is their specific defence that various items of the schedule properties are either self-acquired properties of the parents or properties obtained under registered wills and other testamentary dispositions in their favour. It is further contended that certain properties have already been allotted or conveyed to the plaintiffs during the lifetime of the parents by way of registered sale deeds, and that the plaintiffs have been given their respective shares and have been living separately since long. The execution and validity of registered wills dated 12.04.2006, 24.09.2009 and 10.11.2009 are asserted by the defendants as the foundation of their exclusive title. The defendants thus claim absolute ownership over the respective properties devolved upon them and deny any subsisting joint family status.
16. The principal issue arising for determination in the present suit is Whether the suit schedule properties constitute Hindu joint family and ancestral properties in 26 O.S.No.2996/2010 which the plaintiffs have a coparcenary right, or whether the defendants have established exclusive ownership over the same on the basis of self-acquisition and valid testamentary dispositions, thereby disentitling the plaintiffs from any share therein?
17. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings of the parties and upon appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, this Court proceeds to record its findings on the issues framed for determination as follows:
Issue No.1: This issue goes to the very root of the defence set up by defendant No.1, who claims exclusive entitlement over Item No.2 of the 'A' schedule property on the strength of the Will dated 12.04.2006 marked as Ex.D.8. The burden squarely lies on the defendants to establish not only the execution of the Will, but also its due attestation and genuineness in accordance with law.
18. The defendants contend that late Smt.Nanjamma, during her lifetime, consciously executed Ex.D.8, thereby conferring life interest upon her husband late Srinivas and vesting the remainder in favour of defendant No.1. In 27 O.S.No.2996/2010 support of this plea, they rely upon the testimony of D.W.3, who claims to be an attesting witness to the said Will, and identifies the signatures of the testator and other witnesses. However, when the evidence of D.W.3 is closely scrutinized, it does not inspire confidence. In his cross-examination, D.W.3 admits that he is only educated up to 3rd standard, cannot read or write English, and that he was called by defendant No.1 over telephone to give evidence. More importantly, he admits that the other attesting witness to Ex.D.8, namely Venkata Reddy, is none other than the father-in-law of defendant No.1. This circumstance introduces a clear element of interestedness in the attestation. Further, D.W.3 candidly states that he has no documentary proof of his presence at the place where the Will is alleged to have been executed and that he was working in a floor mill run in the house of Nanjamma, thereby placing him in a position of dependence.
19. It is also elicited that Nanjamma was a housewife with no independent income. The suggestion that the properties stood in her name but were in fact acquired from 28 O.S.No.2996/2010 joint family nucleus has not been effectively dispelled by the defendants. This aspect assumes significance, particularly when the plaintiff has placed reliance on a series of documents including Exs.P.15 to P.17 (GPAs dated 18.10.1979) and subsequent sale deeds at Exs.P.19 to P.35 to contend that the suit properties were acquired from joint family funds generated through earlier transactions.
20. A more serious lacuna to the defendants' case emerges from the scientific evidence placed on record. The Court, in order to arrive at the truth, has examined C.W.1, the handwriting expert from FSL, who has opined in Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 that the questioned signatures marked as Ex.D.8(b) to Ex.D.8(e) are not written by the same person who authored the admitted signatures of Nanjamma found in Ex.D.2, Ex.D.6 and Ex.D.7. The expert has further concluded that the questioned signatures are the result of imitation forgery.
21. Though an attempt is made in cross-examination to discredit the expert on the ground of his qualifications 29 O.S.No.2996/2010 and training, nothing substantial is elicited to dislodge his opinion. It is well settled that expert evidence is not conclusive; nevertheless, it carries persuasive value when supported by cogent reasoning. The evidence of C.W.1 demonstrates that he has employed recognized scientific methods, including examination through video spectral comparator and micro-watcher, and has analyzed parameters such as line quality, stroke formation, spacing and alignment.
22. The plaintiff's counsel has sought to question the integrity of C.W.1 by suggesting that a Lokayukta case was registered against him. In response, the witness has produced Ex.C.7, which reflects that the 'B' final report has been accepted and the proceedings have been closed. In the absence of any material showing conviction or adverse finding, this Court finds no reason to discard his testimony on that ground alone.
23. Further, the surrounding circumstances also cast a shadow on the genuineness of Ex.D.8. The defendants 30 O.S.No.2996/2010 themselves rely upon multiple testamentary documents, including Ex.D.9 and Ex.D.10, dealing with different properties at different points of time. The inconsistency in the manner in which properties are dealt with under these documents, coupled with the absence of a clear and consistent testamentary disposition, raises doubt about the authenticity of the earlier Will.
24. The principles governing proof of Wills are well settled. In H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B.N. Thimmajamma, reported in AIR 1959 SC 443, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the propounder of a Will must prove its due execution and dispel all suspicious circumstances surrounding it. The same principle reiterated in the judgment relied upon by the plaintiff in J T Surappa S/o Late J.S.Thimmappaiah Vs Sri.Satchidhananadendra Saraswathi reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2115. Similarly, in Jaswant Kaur Vs Amrit Kaur, AIR 1977 SC 74, it has been reiterated that where suspicious circumstances exist, the burden on the propounder becomes heavier. The decision relied upon by the plaintiff, in P.T.Shylesh Vs 31 O.S.No.2996/2010 Smt.Ambikapathi, reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2911 also emphasizes that the mere testimony of attesting witnesses is not conclusive, and the Court must evaluate the entire evidence, including expert opinion, to ascertain the genuineness of the Will.
25. In the present case, the cumulative effect of
(i)doubtful testimony of D.W.3, (ii) interested nature of attesting witnesses, (iii) absence of convincing proof of due execution, and (iv) categorical expert opinion pointing to forgery, leads this Court to conclude that the defendants have failed to discharge the burden cast upon them. Accordingly, in the light of above findings and observations Issue No.1 in the Negative.
26. Issue No.2: The burden to establish this issue squarely rests upon defendant Nos.1 and 2, who rely upon Ex.D.73, the registered Will dated 24.09.2009. It is their case that late Srinivas, being the absolute owner of the suit properties, executed the said Will in a sound disposing state 32 O.S.No.2996/2010 of mind, thereby making a conscious and valid disposition in their favour.
27. In order to discharge this burden, the defendants have examined D.W.2, one of the attesting witnesses, and D.W.4, the scribe of the Will. D.W.2, in his chief- examination, identifies the signatures of the testator and other witnesses on Ex.D.73. He deposes that Srinivas had given instructions for preparation of the Will to the scribe Jayaram and that the document was thereafter presented for registration. He further states that the testator signed the Will in the presence of the attesting witnesses and that they, in turn, affixed their signatures in his presence. However, when his evidence is tested in cross-examination, certain inconsistencies and circumstances emerge which cast doubt on the reliability of his testimony. He admits to having long-standing cordial relations with defendant Nos.1 and 2 and that he had come to Court at the instance of defendant No.1. While this by itself may not be sufficient to discard his testimony, it necessitates a cautious approach in appreciating his evidence.
33 O.S.No.2996/2010
28. More significantly, his version regarding the execution of the Will lacks clarity and consistency. He states that instructions were given on 24.09.2009 and that the Will was also presented for registration on the same day at about 10.30 a.m., but is unable to explain the process of preparation or the time taken. There is also inconsistency between his affidavit and oral testimony regarding the presence of persons at the time of execution, particularly with regard to one Nanjamma, whose presence is later denied. Such discrepancies assume importance in a matter where strict proof of execution and attestation is required. The D.W.4, the scribe, has stated that he prepared the Will as per the instructions of Srinivas. The evidence of D.W.4 does not inspire confidence to establish due execution of the Will. Though he claims to be the scribe, his cross- examination discloses material infirmities: he admits that he did not verify any title documents or ascertain the authority of Srinivas over the properties, he is unable to state crucial details such as the date of typing or the sequence of attestation, and he states that the contents 34 O.S.No.2996/2010 were finalized in the absence of any independent witness. Further, his admission regarding prior disputes between Srinivas and defendant No.2 introduces a surrounding circumstance which required greater scrutiny. These inconsistencies, coupled with lack of due diligence and clarity on essential aspects of execution, render his testimony insufficiently reliable to prove the Will in the manner required under law. Therefore, the statutory requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act must be strictly complied with.
29. At this juncture, the scientific evidence assumes considerable significance. C.W.1, the handwriting expert from FSL, has examined the admitted signatures of Srinivas found in Exs.D.3, D.4, D.5 and Ex.D.73, and compared them with the questioned signatures in Ex.D.10. His categorical opinion is that the questioned signatures are the result of imitation forgery. Though this opinion is directly rendered in respect of Ex.D.10, it casts a serious shadow on the credibility of the testamentary documents relied upon 35 O.S.No.2996/2010 by the defendants, particularly when Ex.D.73 and Ex.D.10 are closely connected in point of time and form part of the same chain of transactions.
30. The existence of multiple Wills within a short span, namely Ex.D.73 dated 24.09.2009 and Ex.D.10 dated 10.11.2009, coupled with the absence of a consistent and coherent testamentary scheme, constitutes a suspicious circumstance which the defendants are bound to explain. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming in this regard. Further, the plaintiff has brought on record circumstances indicating that the family was in cordial terms and that there was no compelling reason for the testator to exclude some of the legal heirs in the manner suggested by the defendants. The evidence on record also discloses that the properties were being dealt with through various transactions over the years, and the defendants have not sought appropriate declaratory reliefs in respect of certain documents, thereby adding to the uncertainty surrounding their claim.
36 O.S.No.2996/2010
31. The principles governing proof of Wills are well settled. In H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B.N. Thimmajamma, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where suspicious circumstances surround the execution of a Will, the propounder must remove those suspicions by cogent and satisfactory evidence. Similarly, in Jaswant Kaur vs Amrit Kaur, supra, it is held that the Court must be fully satisfied that the Will is genuine and represents the true intention of the testator.
32. In the present case, the cumulative effect of the doubtful testimony of D.W.2, the absence of effective corroboration, the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution, and the shadow cast by the expert evidence, leads this Court to hold that the defendants have failed to dispel the legitimate doubts surrounding Ex.D.73. Accordingly, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not succeeded in proving the due execution and genuineness of the Will dated 24.09.2009. Hence, this Court answers the Issue No.2 in the Negative.
37 O.S.No.2996/2010
33. Issue No.3: The defendants rely upon Ex.D.10, the Will dated 10.11.2009, to substantiate this issue. It is their contention that late Srinivas, shortly after executing Ex.D.73, executed another Will in respect of Item No.4 of 'A' schedule property and certain movables, thereby conferring benefit upon defendant Nos.1 and 2.
34. In support of this plea, the defendants have examined D.W.5 as an attesting witness. He deposes that Srinivas had called him to the office of the advocate Jayaram and requested him to act as an attesting witness. He further states that the document was read over to the testator and that the testator signed in his presence, followed by the attesting witnesses. However, his cross- examination reveals material aspects which weaken the defendants' case. He admits that he had not witnessed the testator giving instructions for preparation of the Will. He further states that by the time he reached the office, the document was already prepared and printed. Thus, his knowledge is confined only to the act of signing, and not to the preparation or voluntariness of the document. 38 O.S.No.2996/2010
35. More importantly, the scientific evidence adduced through C.W.1 assumes decisive importance in respect of this document. The handwriting expert has opined that the questioned signatures marked as Exs.D.10(c) to (g) do not tally with the admitted signatures of Srinivas and are the result of imitation forgery. This opinion is supported by reasons relating to line quality, stroke formation, and absence of natural writing characteristics.
36. Though an attempt is made to challenge the competence of the expert, nothing substantial is elicited to discredit his opinion. On the contrary, his testimony appears consistent and supported by scientific examination.
37. The existence of Ex.D.10 within a short span after Ex.D.73, coupled with the expert's finding of forgery, creates a strong and unremoved suspicion. The defendants have not offered any satisfactory explanation for these circumstances.
38. Applying the principles laid down in H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs B.N. Thimmajamma and 39 O.S.No.2996/2010 Jaswant Kaur vs Amrit Kaur, supra, this Court is of the view that the defendants have failed to establish the due execution and genuineness of Ex.D.10. Accordingly, this Court answers the Issue No.3 in the Negative.
39. Issue Nos.4 and 6: These two issues are closely related to each other and therefore are taken up together for joint discussion.
The foundation of the plaintiff's case is that the suit schedule properties are the properties of late Srinivas and Nanjamma, and upon their demise, the same devolve upon all their children, namely the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5, in equal shares. The plaintiff has further contended that the defendants, with an intention to exclude her from the rightful share, have set up certain Wills which are neither genuine nor valid in the eye of law.
40. On the otherhand, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sought to defeat the claim for partition by placing reliance on Ex.D.8, Ex.D.73 and Ex.D.10, contending that the 40 O.S.No.2996/2010 properties have already been bequeathed in their favour under the said testamentary documents.
41. This Court, while dealing with Issue Nos.1 to 3, has already recorded a categorical finding that the defendants have failed to prove the due execution and genuineness of the alleged Wills. The evidence of the attesting witnesses suffers from inconsistencies and does not satisfy the mandatory requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act. More importantly, the scientific evidence of C.W.1 clearly indicates that the signatures found on Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.10 are the result of imitation forgery, and the suspicious circumstances surrounding Ex.D.73 remain unexplained. The defendants, who are the propounders of the Wills, have thus failed to discharge the heavy burden cast upon them.
42. In that view of the matter, the defence based on testamentary succession necessarily fails, and the 41 O.S.No.2996/2010 properties are to be treated as having devolved by intestate succession.
43. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 are the children of late Srinivas and Nanjamma. In the absence of a valid Will, they succeed as Class-I heirs under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, each being entitled to an equal share.
44. The plaintiff has also placed reliance on several documents including Exs.P.15 to P.17 (General Power of Attorneys dated 18.10.1979) and Exs.P.19 to P.35 (sale deeds) to demonstrate that the suit properties were acquired from out of joint family nucleus and subsequent transactions. It is her specific contention that the proceeds from earlier sales were utilized for acquisition of Item Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 'A' schedule properties and Item No.1 of 'B' schedule property. The defendants have not placed any convincing material to establish that the said properties are 42 O.S.No.2996/2010 their exclusive properties or that the plaintiff has relinquished her share therein.
45. It is also brought on record that certain properties have already been dealt with separately. In particular, Item No.2 of 'B' schedule property has been the subject matter of a compromise decree dated 10.11.2017 recorded by this Court, and therefore, the same stands excluded from the present adjudication. Similarly, certain arguments were advanced regarding alienations and other transactions; however, the defendants have not sought any counter-claim or independent relief in respect of those transactions, and therefore, the scope of the present suit remains confined to partition of the existing properties.
46. Insofar as the movables are concerned, particularly the jewels and deposits, it is noticed that part of the dispute has already been resolved under the compromise recorded earlier, and the remaining aspects can appropriately be worked out in final decree proceedings.
43 O.S.No.2996/2010
47. Having regard to the entirety of the evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has established her right as a co-sharer in the suit schedule properties. There is no material to show that she has been lawfully excluded or that her share has been extinguished in any manner known to law.
48. In a suit for partition, once the status of co- ownership is established, the right to seek partition and separate possession follows as a matter of course. The plaintiff is also entitled to mesne profits from the date of suit till delivery of possession, the quantum of which has to be determined in separate proceedings under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 are each entitled to 1/4th share in Item Nos.1 to 5 of 'A' schedule property and Item No.1 of 'B' schedule property, subject to lawful adjustments, equities and exclusions to be worked out in final decree proceedings. Hence, this Court answers the Issue No.4 Partly in the Affirmative and Issue No.6 Partly in the Affirmative.
44 O.S.No.2996/2010
49. Issue No.5: The defendants have raised a contention regarding insufficiency of court fee. However, except making a bald assertion, no substantial material is placed on record to demonstrate that the valuation adopted by the plaintiff is incorrect or that the court fee paid is inadequate.
50. The suit is one for partition and separate possession, where the plaintiff claims joint possession. In such cases, court fee is payable under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, on the basis of notional valuation, unless ouster is specifically pleaded and proved. In the present case, there is no convincing evidence to show that the plaintiff has been excluded from possession so as to require payment of court fee on market value. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the court fee paid by the plaintiff is held to be proper and sufficient. Accordingly, this Court answers the Issue No.5 in the Affirmative.
45 O.S.No.2996/2010
51. Issue No.7: In view of the above discussion and findings on the above issues, this Court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part as per the terms below:
It is declared that the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, 2 & 5 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the Item No.1 to 5 of the Schedule 'A' Property and Item No.1 of the schedule 'B' property, subject to lawful exclusions and adjustments to be determined in final decree proceedings.
The Item No.2 of 'B' schedule property stands already disposed of in terms of the compromise decree dt.10.11.2017 recorded by this Court, and the same is excluded from further adjudication.
Draw preliminary decree for partition accordingly.
The plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits, the quantum of which shall be determined in separate proceedings under Order XX Rule 12 CPC.46 O.S.No.2996/2010
Considering the nature of the dispute, there shall be no order as to costs. In pursuance of the Circular of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dtd. 03.01.2024, the Office is hereby directed to draw the preliminary decree and subsequently put up the file for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of CPC.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on computer, computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 22nd day of April, 2026.).
(MADHU N.R) XXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
***** ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff :
P.W-1 Prabhavati List of witnesses examined for the defendants :
D.W-1 Ramesh Babu
D.W-2 N.Ramakrishnaiah
D.W-3 B.R.Krishna Reddy
D.W-4 Jayaramu
D.W-5 Muralidhar.S
Court Witness:
C.W-1 Dr.V.Aravindan
47 O.S.No.2996/2010
List of documents marked for the plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 Death Certificate of late Srinivas Exs.P.2 to 6 5 Khatha extracts Ex.P.7 Certified copy of Release Deed dt.19.03.1973 Ex.P.7(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.7 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of Gift Deed dt. 10.04.1981 Ex.P.8(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.8 Ex.P.9 Office copy of application dt.06.03.2010 Ex.P.10 Certified copy of Gift Deed dt.02.03.1980 Ex.P.11 Certified copy of Rectification Deed dt.07.03.1980 Ex.P.12 Certified copy of Gift Deed dt. 16.11.1979 Ex.P.13 Certified copy of Gift Deed dt. 10.04.1981 Ex.P.14 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 24.09.1979 Exs.P.15 to 3 GPAs 17 Ex.P.18 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 02.02.1980 Exs.P.19 to 5 Certified copy of sale deeds P.23 Ex.P.24 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 03.01.1980 Exs.P.25 to 7 certified copy of sale deeds executed by Ramaiah P.31 Exs.P.32 to 4 certified copies of sale deeds executed by P.35 Shivanna Ex.P.36 Endorsement issued by Tahsildhar dt. 26.06.2018 Exs.P.37 to Index of lands P.39 Ex.P.40 Records of rights Agreement of sale Ex.P.41 Mutation Register Extract Ex.P.42 Release Deed dt. 19.03.1973 Ex.P.43 Release Deed dt. 12.03.2007 Exs.P.43(a), Signatures of DW-1 and Channappa
(b) Ex.P.44, 44(a) Certified copy of unregistered partition deed dt.
18.12.1973 alongwith typed copy Exs.P.45 to Certified copies of plaint, written statement and P.47 ordersheet in O.S.No.7074/2010 Ex.P.48 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 28.10.1991 Ex.P.49 Death Certificate of Nanjamma Exs.P.50, 51 Photographs Ex.P.52 Application for loan submitted by late Srinivas Ex.P.53 Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dt.
16.12.2005 Ex.P.54 Discharge certificate dt. 26.10.2007 issued by 48 O.S.No.2996/2010 Shamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Ex.P.55 Photo List of documents marked for the defendants :
Ex.D.1 Release Deed dt. 19.03.1973
Ex.D.2 Sale deed dt. 24.09.1979
Ex.D.3 Gift Deed dt. 07.03.1980
Ex.D.4 Rectification Deed dt. 07.03.1980
Ex.D.5 Gift Deed dt. 16.11.1979
Ex.D.6 Gift Deed dt. 10.04.1981
Ex.D.7 Rectification Deed dt. 15.04.1995
Ex.D.8 Will dt. 12.04.2006
Ex.D.8(a) Signature of DW-3
Ex.D.8(b to Signature of Nanjamma
e)
Ex.D.8(f) Signature of witness
Ex.D.8(g) Signature of Scribe
Ex.D.9 Will dt. 24.09.2006
Ex.D.10 Will dt. 10.11.2009
Exs.D.11 28 tax paid receipts
to D.38
Exs.D.39 12 khatha certificates and extracts
to D.50
Ex.D.51 Notice issued by BBMP dt. 25.02.2010
Ex.D.52 Khatha certificate
Ex.D.53 Khatha Extract
Exs.D.54 9 tax invoices
to D.62
Exs.D.63 3 cash bills
to D.65
ExD.66 Credit purchaser Book
Ex.D.67 Bills
Ex.D.68 GPA dt. 24.11.1997
Ex.D.69 Sale Deed dt. 25.02.2002
Ex.D.70 GPA dt. 24.11.1997
Ex.D.71 Sale deed dt. 25.02.2002
Ex.D.72 Sale deed dt. 14.06.1996
Ex.D.73 Will dt. 24.09.2009
Ex.D.73(a) Signature of DW-2
Ex.D.73(b Signature of Srinivas
to l)
Ex.D.73(m) Signature of Channappa
Ex.D.73(n) Signature of Scribe
49 O.S.No.2996/2010
Court Documents :
Ex.C.1 Test Report
Ex.C.2 Opinion
Exs.C.3 to Enlarged prints of admitted and questioned C.6 signatures Ex.C.7 Certified copy of entire ordersheet in PCR No.10/2019 Ex.C.8 Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.10/2019 Ex.C.9 Certified copy of 'B' report Ex.C.10 Certified copy of order in PCR No.10/2019 Digitally signed by MADHU N R MADHU N R Date:
+0530 2026.05.04 16:54:30 (MADHU N.R) XXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
**** 50 O.S.No.2996/2010