Bangalore District Court
Ambujamma vs Anjinamma on 5 January, 2026
KABC0A0012832014
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29) MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2026.
PRESENT:
Sri BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.25417/2014
C/W
ORIGINAL SUIT No.6585/2011
O.S.NO.25417/2014
PLAINTIFF : Smt. Anjinamma,
W/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Aged about 69 years,
Residing at No.254, 4th 'B' Cross,
Near Poornima Hotel, Jakkur,
Bangalore - 560 064.
(By Sri E. Venkata Rami Reddy, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt. Ambuja,
W/o. Govindaraju,
Cont'd..
O.S.No.25417/2014
2 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at Kateereamma Temple
Road, Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 077.
2. Govind,
S/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
3. Mrs. Jhambo,
W/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
4. Marry,
W/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
5. Nagaraj,
S/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
6. Prakash,
S/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
O.S.No.25417/2014
3 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
7. Uday R.K.,
S/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
8. Mrs. Aisha Fazel,
W/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
9. Ebraimh,
S/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
10. Mrs. Jarina,
W/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
11. Mrs. Pathima,
W/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
O.S.No.25417/2014
4 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
12. Riyaz Ahamed,
S/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
13. Mrs. Salma,
W/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
14. Sathish,
S/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
15. Shabana,
W/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about major,
C/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Kateramma Temple Road,
Thanisandra, S.K. Nagar Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 077.
(D.1 to 4, 7, 9, 10, 13 by
Sri Ravi L. Vaidya, Advocate)
O.S.No.25417/2014
5 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
(D.5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15: Ex-parte)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 07-03-2014
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Injunction Suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 20-02-2020
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 05-01-2026
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 11years, 09months, 28 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
O.S.NO.6585/2011
PLAINTIFF : Smt. Ambujamma,
Aged about 31 years,
W/o. Govindaraju,
Residing at No.72, Thanisandra,
Arabic College Post, Bangalore
East Taluk, Bengaluru - 560 045.
(By Sri Ravi L. Vaidya, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANT : Smt Anjinamma,
Aged about 72 years,
W/o. Late C. Krishnappa,
Residing at No.72, Thanisandra,
Arabic College Post, Bangalore
East Taluk, Bengaluru - 560 045.
(By Sri E. Venkata Rami Reddy, Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
O.S.No.25417/2014
6 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
Date of Institution of the Suit : 09-09-2011
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Injunction Suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 04-07-2012
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 05-01-2026
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 14years, 03months, 26days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sd/-
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
COMMON JUDGMENT
The suit in O.S.No.25417/2014 is instituted by
the plaintiff against the defendants for relief of
mandatory injunction, directing defendants to deliver
vacant possession of schedule properties to plaintiff.
Consequently restrain the defendants or anybody
claiming under them from interfering with plaintiff's
possession of the schedule properties and grant such
other reliefs.
O.S.No.25417/2014
7 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
Likewise suit in O.S.No.6585/2011 is filed by
plaintiff against defendant for relief of permanent
injunction, restraining the defendant, her men,
henchmen, legal heirs, successors, agents or anybody
claiming under therm from alienating the suit property
in favour of third persons and grant such other relief.
2.Case of plaintiff in brief in
O.S.No.25417/2014 is as under :-
That, plaintiff is absolute owner of suit property by
virtue of registered Will dated 29.06.2009 executed by
her husband. Subsequently husband of plaintiff had
also executed a registered Gift Deed dated 13.08.2009
in respect of suit properties in favour of plaintiff.
Plaintiff has not executed either registered or
unregistered deeds in respect of suit properties either in
favour of defendants or in favour of any third parties.
Defendant No.1 is in unauthorized possession of suit
properties claiming as Legal heir of husband of plaintiff
based on invalid Will. Other defendants are tenants in
suit properties. Plaintiff has no children. Hence,
husband of plaintiff looked after by defendant No.1, who
O.S.No.25417/2014
8 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
is relative of plaintiff. Under these circumstance, during
life time of husband of plaintiff Late C. Krishnappa
executed registered Will dated 15.01.1999 in favour of
defendant No.1 bequeathing suit Item No.1 & 3
properties and portion of Item No.2 property in her
favour on certain conditions that, income derived from
schedule properties shall go to plaintiff until her life
time. Subsequent to execution of said Will, attitude of
defendant No.1 towards plaintiff and her husband
become very strange and she intentionally started to
neglect them. Under these circumstances, husband of
plaintiff constrained to revoke and cancel Will dated
15.01.1999 executed in favour of defendant No.1. As
such defendant No.1 will not derive or get any right or
title over suit properties based on Will dated
15.01.1999. Subsequently on 13.08.2009 husband of
plaintiff executed registered Gift Deed in favour of
plaintiff in respect of suit property. The plaintiff become
absolute owner of suit property. Husband of plaintiff
died on 04.08.2011. After death of her husband,
plaintiff constrained to live separately from suit
O.S.No.25417/2014
9 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
properties in order to fulfill death ceremonies and other
traditions and customs of family as advised by priests
and relatives. Plaintiff shifted to her residence to her
mother house at Jakkur by kept locking her residence
in suit properties. Taking advantage of situation,
defendant No.1 is illegally occupied suit property by
break opening lock illegally. In spite of repeated request
and demands made by plaintiff, defendant No.1 and
other defendants failed to deliver vacant possession of
suit properties to plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff has filed
present suit for appropriate relieves as prayed in the
plaint.
3. In pursuance of service of suit summons, the
defendants No.1 to 4, 7, 9, 10 and 13 have tendered
their appearance before the Court through their counsel
and contested the case. The defendant No.1 has filed
her written statement. Even after service of suit
summons, the defendants No.5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15
have not tendered their appearance before the Court
through their counsel and contested the case,
consequently, they were placed ex-parte.
O.S.No.25417/2014
10 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
4. The contents of written statement of
defendant No.1 in brief are as under:-
That, suit schedule properties originality owned
and possessed by late. C. Krishnappa, who is none
other than husband of plaintiff and father of defendant
No.1. The plaintiff is in adoptive mother of defendant
No.1. Suit schedule properties are self acquired
properties of C. Krishnappa, who died on 04.08.2011.
C. Krishnappa died testate and during his life time, he
executed registered Will dated 11.01.1999 bequeathed
properties to defendant No.1. Plaintiff used to treat
C.Krishnappa badly and she has no love and affection
towards him. Therefore, C. Krishnappa executed
registered Will dated 15.01.1999 giving limited rights to
his wife plaintiff herein. Plaintiff never used to give any
respect to her husband. On account of behavior of
plaintiff, C. Krishnappa had almost lost his senses and
he was under clutches of plaintiff during last 4 to 5
years of his death. Under said circumstances, there
was no occasion or reasons for C. Krishnappa to revoke
registered Will dated 15.01.1999 and to gift schedule
O.S.No.25417/2014
11 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
properties in favour of plaintiff as claimed by her. After
death of C. Krishnappa, defendant No.1 become owner
of suit property. Plaintiff has no manner of right or
interest in suit property. On these grounds, it is
requested to dismiss the suit.
5. On the basis of above pleadings of both parties,
this court has framed the following :-
ISSUES IN O.S.NO.25417/2014
1. Whether plaintiff proves that, she is the
absolute owner of suit schedule property
as claimed in the plaint?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that, on
15.01.1999 defendant illegally occupied
suit premises by break open the lock?
3. Whether defendant No.1 proves that he
acquired right, title and possession over
the suit property by virtue of the
registered Will dated 15.01.1999?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for
possession as prayed?
5.Whether plaintiff is entitled for
injunction as prayed?
6. What order or decree?
O.S.No.25417/2014
12 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN O.S.NO.25417/2014
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, her
husband late C. Krishnappa has
revoked and canceled the registered Will
dated 15.01.1999 by way of registered
deed of revocation on 16.06.2009?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that,
subsequent to cancellation of the Will
dated 15.01.1999, her husband has
executed and registered the Gift Deed
dated 13.08.2009 in her favour?
6.Case of plaintiff in brief in O.S.No.6585/2011
is as under:-
That, suit schedule properties originally owned
and possessed by Late. C. Krishnappa, who is none
other than father of plaintiff and husband of defendant.
Defendant is adoptive mother of plaintiff. Suit schedule
properties are self acquired properties of Late. C.
Krishnappa, who died on 04.08.2011. Sri.C. Krishnappa
during his life time, executed registered Will dated
15.01.1999 and bequeathed suit properties to plaintiff.
C. Krishnappa was treating defendant with love and
care and he was very particular about social respect.
O.S.No.25417/2014
13 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
Late.C. Krishnappa knew very well that, if conduct of
defendant were made public he would only lose his
reputation in society. Defendant never used to give any
respect to her husband. C. Krishnappa was unable to
take any independent decision during his later part of
life. Whenever, plaintiff visited C. Krishnappa he was
showing his helplessness and anguish. C. Krishnappa
executed registered Will freely and voluntarily. Under
Will limited estate of enjoying income of suit properties
created in favour of defendant. Plaintiff has become
owner of suit properties under Will. Defendant has no
manner of right to alienate to suit properties. On
07.09.2011 defendant has negotiated sale of Item No.2
property for total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-
with one Venugopal of Dasarahally. The plaintiff advised
Venugopal not to purchase suit property. Plaintiff
thereafter questioned, defendant about said illegal act.
Defendant conceded, plaintiff is owner of suit properties
under Will. The defendant said that, she being of wife of
C.Krishnappa, she will sell suit property at any cost and
asked plaintiff to join sale, if she wants any share in
O.S.No.25417/2014
14 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
property. Justice demands that, such illegal sale is
prevented. On these grounds, it is requested to decree
the suit as prayed in plaint.
7. In response to the service of suit summons,
defendant has tendered her appearance before the court
through her respective counsels and contested the case
and filed written statement.
8. The contents of written statement of
defendant in brief are as under:-
Suit of the plaintiff is not at all maintainable either
in law or on facts, same is liable to be dismissed. It is
admitted, suit schedule properties originally belonged to
Late C. Krishnappa. It is denied that, defendant is
adoptive mother of plaintiff. It is specifically contended,
defendant is only Legal Heir of Late C. Krishnappa, who
died intestate. It is further admitted, Late C. Krishnappa
during his life time executed registered Will dated
15.01.1999. Subsequent to execution of Will, behavior
and attitude of plaintiff towards defendant and her
husband become very strange and plaintiff started
O.S.No.25417/2014
15 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
neglected and visiting husband of defendant. In view of
same, husband of defendant on 16.06.2009 revoked
and canceled Will dated 15.01.1999 while in a sound
and disposing state of mind and health. As such,
alleged Will dated 15.01.1999 become invalid.
Subsequent to cancellation of Will, husband of
defendant executed registered Gift Deed dated
13.08.2009 in favour of defendant in respect of suit
properties. Based on registered Gift deed, defendant is
in peaceful possessed and enjoyment of suit properties.
On these grounds, the defendant has requested the
Court to dismiss the suit of plaintiff with cost.
9. On the basis of above pleadings of both parties,
this court has framed the following :-
ISSUES IN O.S.NO.6585/2011
1. Whether plaintiff proves that the
defendant is trying to alienate the suit
property illegally?
2. Whether the suit is maintainable?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
reliefs sought for?
O.S.No.25417/2014
16 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
4. What order?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES DATED 24.10.2016
3(a). Whether the defendant does prove and
establish that on account of alleged
cancellation of Will dated 15.01.1999 by
deed of revocation dated 16.06.2009
and on account of execution registered
gift deed dated 13.08.2009 in her
favour, the plaintiff herein above has
not proved the necessary ingredients of
Section 38 of Specific Relief Act and
therefore plaintiff is not entitle for the
relief of perpetual injunction as sought
for?
10. On perusal of records, as per order dated
20.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.25417/2014, both suits in
O.S.No.25417/2014 and O.S.No.6585/2011 have been
clubbed for recording common evidence for disposal of
both suits.
11. After clubbing of two suits, plaintiff in
O.S.No.25417/2014 in order to prove her cases has
examined as P.W.1 and produced in all 47 documents
got marked on behalf of plaintiff as per Ex.P.1 to
O.S.No.25417/2014
17 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
Ex.P.47. On the other hand, plaintiff in
O.S.No.6568/2011 has been examined as D.W.1 and
produced only two documents as per Exs.D.1 and D.2.
12. Heard argument of respective counsels for
the parties, perused the records placed before the
Court.
13. On consideration of an argument and
documents placed before the Court, my answer to the
above points and issues framed in respective suits
mentioned above are as follows:
O.S.NO.25417/2014
ISSUE No.1 :- In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 :- In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.3 :- In the negative
ISSUE No.4 :- In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.5 :- In the affirmative;
Addl. ISSUE No.1:- In the affirmative
DATED 14.06.2024.
Addl. ISSUE No.2 :-In the affirmative;
DATED 14.06.2024.
ISSUE No.6 :- As per final order
O.S.No.25417/2014
18 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
for the following:
O.S.NO.6585/2011
ISSUE No.1 :- In the negative;
ISSUE No.2 :- In the negative;
ISSUE No.3 :- In the negative;
Addl.ISSUE No.3(a) :- In the negative;
ISSUE No.4 :- As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
14. ISSUES No.1 and 3, ADDITIONAL ISSUES
No.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.25417/2014 AND ISSUE NO.1
IN O.S.NO.6585/2011:- As these issues are inter-
related to each other and involves common appreciation
of facts and evidence on record, findings on one issue
are bearing on other issues, in order to avoid repetition
of facts and for convenience sake, all issues are taken
together for common discussion.
15. That, suit schedule properties, which are suit
Item No. 1 to 3, as shown in Schedule to the plaint in both
suits are one and the same. Parties to the suits are no
O.S.No.25417/2014
19 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
more in a dispute that, suit schedule properties were
originally acquired by late C. Krishnappa S/o Chikanna.
Further, it is not in dispute that, plaintiff in O.S. No. 25417
of 2014, Smt. Anjanamma, who is defendant No. 1 in O.S.
No. 6585 of 2011 is wife of C. Krishnappa. Further parties
to the suit are not in dispute that, C. Krishnappa died on
04.08.2011. In addition, death certificate of C. Krishnappa
has been produced before court as per Ex.P.15.
16. The plaintiff - Smt. Anjinamma in O.S. No.
25417/2014 is claiming her right over suit schedule
properties mainly based on registered Will dated
29.06.2009 produced as per Ex.P2 and gift deed dated
13.08.2009, which has been produced before the court as
per Ex.P1. On the contrary, plaintiff Ambujamma in O.S.
No. 6585/2011 is claiming her right and ownership over
suit schedule properties based on registered Will dated
15.01.1999 which is produced as per Ex.P13.
17. The deed of revocation of Will dated 15.01.1999
has been produced before the court as per Ex.P14. It is a
settled law that, a registered Will can generally be revoked
by even unregistered deed of revocation. What is material is
O.S.No.25417/2014
20 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
that, it clearly expresses intention of testator to do so
means to revoke Will executed by him.
18. Smt. Ambujamma, who examined as D.W1 before
court, in her pleadings and evidence before the court has
deposed that, suit schedule properties were originally
owned and possessed by late C. Krishnappa. It is
specifically deposed by D.W.1 that, Anjinamma is her
adoptive mother and C, Krishnappa died on 04.08.2011.
After his death, she herself and Anjinamma are the only
legal heirs left behind by deceased.
19. It is further specific case of Ambujamma and
same is deposed by her that, C. Krishnappa during his
lifetime has executed a registered Will dated 15.01.1999 as
per Ex. P13, thereby bequeathed suit properties in her
favour. As already discussed, claim of Ambujamma over
suit schedule properties is mainly based on registered Will
dated 15.01.1999 as per Ex. P13. Anjinamma, who
examined as PW1 before the court in her examination-in-
chief, she has specifically deposed that, she herself and her
husband, C.Krishnappa have no children. Hence her
husband had to look after by Ambujamma as she is
O.S.No.25417/2014
21 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
relative to her. Accordingly, Ambujamma developed an
intimacy and affection towards her husband. In view of the
same, late C.Krishnappa had executed registered Will dated
15.01.1999 in favour of Ambujama bequeathing suit
schedule properties, which are suit Item No. 1 and 3 and
portion of suit Item No. 2 in favour of Ambujamma with
certain conditions that, income derived from suit schedule
properties shall go to her until her lifetime.
20. On careful perusal of contents of Ex. P13, which
is Will dated 15.01.1999, it is clearly mentioned testator
bequeathed all mentioned scheduled properties in favour of
Anjinamma, who is entitled to all income derived from the
said properties during her lifetime. She is not entitled to
have any power of elimination of scheduled properties
during her lifetime, but has limited right of enjoying income
thereof.
21. The PW1 in her examination-in-chief has further
deposed that, after marriage, Ambujamma failed to look
after well and good of her husband and she has not taken
any care towards the welfare of her husband in the times of
need. Under these circumstances, her husband
O.S.No.25417/2014
22 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
constrained to revoke and cancel Will dated 15.01.1999
executed in favour of Ambujamma in respect of scheduled
properties by way of deed of revocation of Will dated
26.09.2009. Accordingly, Will dated 15.01.1999 became an
invalid will.
22. The DW1 in her cross-examination has deposed,
her grandfather and late C. Krishnappa are own brothers.
The D.W.1 has claimed ignorance about in the year 2009,
C Krishnappa has executed deed of revocation of Will as
per Ex.P14 and thereafter, he executed registered gift deed
in respect of suit schedule properties in favour of his wife
Anjinamma as per Ex.P1.
23. The DW1 in her further cross examination has
deposed, in Will executed by late Krishnappa in her favour
it is mentioned Anjinamma is entitled for rent amount of
suit schedule properties during her lifetime. It was
suggested to DW1, though it was written in the Will that
Anjinamma is entitled for rent amount pertaining to suit
properties, she has not given any amount to her. Witness
has answered that, though she has invited Anjinamma,
she has not come. It is fact that Ex. P39 is reply dated
O.S.No.25417/2014
23 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
39.05.2012 issued by Ambujamma through her counsel to
Anjinamma. In said reply, it is specifically mentioned that,
it is made clear that, Anjinamma had not made any
demand for payment of rents.
24. As per above-mentioned facts and evidence of
DW1, it can very well gathered that, Ambujamma has not
taken care of C. Krishnappa and his wife Anjinamma, after
execution of registered will as per Ex.P13 by C. Krishnappa
and also not paid rent amounts to Anjinamma. As such
during his lifetime itself, C. Krishnappa executed deed of
revocation of Will executed in favour of Ambujamma,
thereby executed gift deed in respect of suit schedule
properties in favour of his wife as per Ex. P1 and thereby
gifted suit properties in her favour.
25. Katha extracts pertaining to suit schedule
properties in the name of Anginamma have been produced
as per Ex. P3 to Ex. P7 before court. It can be gathered
from these documents that, in a view of execution of gift
deed, wherein it is mentioned possession of gifted
properties handed over to donee, name of Anjinamma
O.S.No.25417/2014
24 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
might have entered to suit schedule properties in
concerned records.
26. It is evident from records and evidence of parties
before the court that, late C Krishnappa being absolute
owner of suit schedule properties bequathed these suit
properties in favour of Ambujamma by executing registered
Will dated 15.01.1999 as per Ex.P13, with the condition
that, rents derived from suit properties has to be given to
his wife Anjinamma during her lifetime. Later on C.
Krishnappa executed deed of revocation as per Ex. P14 on
the ground that Ambujamma has not taken care of himself
and his wife. Subsequently, C. Krishnappa Executed
registered Will dated 29.06.2009 as per Ex. P2 and
thereafter executed registered gift deed dated 13.08.2009
as per Ex. P1 in favour of his wife Anjinamma thereby
gifted suit schedule properties in her favour and handed
over possession of the same to Anjinamma.
27. It is a fact that, by executing deed of revocation
and gift deed as per Ex. P1, Testator C. Krishnapa has
canceled or revoked bequeth of suit properties in favour of
Ambujamma, which were bequeathed in her favour as per
O.S.No.25417/2014
25 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
Ex. P.13. By subsequent act of C. Krishnappa in executing
Ex. P14, Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 earlier registered Will executed
by him as per Ex.P13 in favour of Ambujamma stands
canceled or revoked. Such being the documentary evidence
on record, Ambujamma cannot claim she became absolute
owner of suit properties by virtue of Ex. P13- Will.
28. The learned Counsel for Ambujamma has
vehemently argued that execution of gift deed by C.
Krishnappa has been denied by Ambujamma. Therefore, in
absence of examining one of attesting witnesses to gift
deed, said document is not proved. Execution of Will as per
Ex.P13 not disputed by Anginamma. As such,
Ambujamma become absolute owner of suit-schedule
properties by virtue of Will as per Ex.P13.
29. The learner counsel for Ambujamma, in support
of his arguments, has relied upon decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2020) 16 SCC 255 in case of
Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and others V/s Patel
Ramanbhai Mathurabhai wherein it was held that, as
per Section 68 of Evidence Act, if a document is required by
law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one
O.S.No.25417/2014
26 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of
doing its execution. If there will be an attesting witness
alive and subject to process of 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 will which has been registered in accordance
with provisions of Indian Registration Act, unless its
execution by person whom it purports to have been
executed is specifically denied. A gift deed is required to be
compulsorily attested in terms of Section 123 of Transfer of
Property Act. Similar is the provision in respect of
execution of Will, which is required to be attested in terms
of Section 63 of Succession Act. Section 68 of Evidence Act
makes it mandatory to examine one of the attesting
witnesses for the purpose of proving of the execution of Will
but such limitation is not applicable in respect of proof of
execution of any document which has been registered in
accordance with provisions of Registration Act, unless the
execution is specifically denied. Laughter.
30. It is to be noted here that, Ambujamma in her
written statement has specifically contented, Anjinamma
O.S.No.25417/2014
27 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
never used to give any respect to her husband, and she
was imposing her will and desire on her husband. On
account of behavior of Anjinamma, C. Krishnappa had
almost lost his senses and he was totally under clutches of
Anginamma during his last 4 to 5 years of his life.
Krishnappa was unable to take any independent decision
during his later part of his life. Under said circumstances,
there was no reason or occasion for Krishnappa to revoke
registered Will dated 15.01.1999 and to gift the scheduled
properties to plaintiff as claimed by her.
31. While cross examining PW1, it was suggested
Ex.P1, Ex. P2 and Ex. P14 are created when Krishnappa
was not in state of mind and health. Further, it is
suggested to PW1 that, there is a difference of signature of
Krishnapppa as forthcoming in Ex. P13 compared to his
alleged signature in Ex. P14. Further, it is suggested to
PW1 that, after death of Krishnappa, she has created
Ex.P14 and produced before the court and now, falsely
contending it is executed by Krishnappa.
32. In above decision relied upon by learned counsel
for Ambujama, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
O.S.No.25417/2014
28 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
that, the appellants have admitted execution of gift deed,
but alleged that donee has made unsuccessful efforts for
grabbing the property. There is no report of an expert in
respect of signatures of donor on gifted, nor any request
was made for sending document to forensic science
laboratory. There must be a specific denial of execution of
gift deed. Specific denial of execution of gift deed is an
unambiguous and categorical statement that donor did not
execute the document. It means not only that denial must
be in express terms, but it should be unqualified, manifest,
and explicit. It should be certain and definite denial of
execution. What has to be specifically denied is execution of
document. Other contentions not necessarily and distinctly
referring to the execution of document by the alleged
executed cannot be gathered for denial contemplated in the
proviso.
33. Further, it is pertinent to note here that, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment at paragraph 40
has clearly observed that, appellants have not denied
execution of document but alleged forgery and fabrication.
In the absence of any evidence of any forgery and
O.S.No.25417/2014
29 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
fabrication and in absence of specific denial of execution of
gift deed, The donee was not under obligation to examine
one of the attesting witnesses of the gift deal.
34. The principles laid down in above decision, on the
other hand, applicable to the case of Anjinamma. Here in
the case, Ambujamma has not specifically denied execution
of gift deed by Krishnappa. On the other hand, it is
contented, it is fabricated and created. No efforts made to
refer signature of Krishnappa on admitted document and
disputed document for forensic science lab.
35. The denial of execution of a gift deed is not
specific. As such, question of examining one of the attesting
witnesses to gift deed by Aniinamma to prove execution of
gift deed does not arise. The decision relied upon by
learned counsel for Ambujamma is much helpful to the
case of Anjinamma.
36. It is evident from records that, C. Krishnapa
though executed Will as per Ex.P13, bequeathing suit
properties in favour of Ambujamma during his lifetime
itself, he has revoked said Will and thereafter executed gift
O.S.No.25417/2014
30 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
deed dated 13.08.2009 as per Ex. P1 in respect of suit
properties and thereby gifted suit properties in favour of his
wife, Anjinamma. Now, Anjinamma, having taken suit
properties under gift deed, become absolute owner of suit
schedule properties.
37. On perusal of contents of gift deed, evidence of
PW1 and contents of Ex. P3 to P10, it is very much clear,
there is proposal, acceptance and taking over of possession
of suit property by Anjinamma from donor. In respect of
possession of suit properties, Anjinamma has specifically
pleaded in the plaint and same is deposed by her before the
court that, after death of her husband, she was
constrained to live separately from scheduled properties in
order to fulfill her husband's death ceremonies and other
traditions and family customs advised as by priests and
other relatives, the plaintiff had to shift her residence to her
mother's house at Jakkur by kept locking her residence in
the scheduled properties. The Ambujamma taking
advantage of situation that plaintiff is not residing in
scheduled properties without having any right, title over
schedule properties and claiming as legal heir of deceased
O.S.No.25417/2014
31 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
Krishnappa based on invalid Will, illegally occupied suit
properties by breaking open the lock.
38. Once registered Will dated 15.01.1999 executed
by C. Krishnappa in favour of Ambujamma has been
subsequently revoked by him and thereafter he executed
gift deed as per Ex. P1 in favour of his wife Anjinamma,
now Ambujamma cannot claim, right, title and possession
over suitable properties by virtue of registered Will dated
15.01.1999. As such, question of Anjinamma is trying to
alienate suit properties illegally, as contented by
Ambujamma, does not arise. Hence, I answer Issue No. 1,
Additional Issues No.1 and 2 in OS No. 25417/2014 in
the affirmative and Issue No.3 in OS No. 25417/2014
in the negative and Issue No.1 in OS No. 6585/2011 in
the negative.
39. ISSUE NO.2 IN O.S.NO.25417/2014 :- In Ex.P1
gift deed, there is clear recital that, donor on date of
execution of gift deed has delivered physical and actual
possession of scheduled properties to donee, who is
Anjinamma. As per Exs.P.3 to P.10, name of Anjanamma
has been shown as owner and occupier of suit schedule
O.S.No.25417/2014
32 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
properties. Ex. P16 to Ex. P30 are the legal notices issued
by Anjanamma to Ambujamma and other tenants of suit
schedule properties, asking them to hand over possession
of suit properties to her. Ex. P39 to Ex. P47 are the reply
issued to the legal notice issued by Anjinamma. In Ex. P39,
it is specifically contented that, Ambujamma is the
absolute owner of properties in question and there is no
trespassing of suit properties by Ambujamma.
40. It is required to be noted here that, C.
Krishnappa had canceled Will executed in favour of
Ambujamma and thereby gifted suit properties in favour of
his wife under registered gift deed as per Ex. P1. The
plaintiff has specifically claimed that, after the death of her
husband when she left to her parental house to perform
the death ceremonies of her husband, Ambujamma has
illegally occupied suit properties by breaking open the lock.
Once, Ambujamma cannot claim any right, title or
possession over suit properties based on Will as per
Ex.P13, which was subsequently revoked by testator,
possession of Ambujamma over suit properties, as claimed
by her is illegal possession over suit properties. She under
O.S.No.25417/2014
33 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
legal obligation to hand over vacant possession of suit
properties to Anjinamma. Further, the tenants of suit
properties who are other additional Defendants in OS No.
25417 of 2014 are also under legal obligation to hand out
vacant possession of suit properties to Anginamma.
Hence, I answer Issue No. 2 in OS No. 25417/2014 in
the affirmative.
41. ISSUE No.2 IN O.S.No. 6585/2011 :- It is to be
noted here that, plaintiff has filed suit against Anjinamma
for relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit
properties, restraining defendant from alienating suit
schedule properties in favour of third persons. On going
through the pleadings, in said suit, the plaintiff has
claimed her right and interest over suit properties based
on Will as per Ex. P13.
42. As already discussed, Will as per Ex. P13 has
been subsequently revoked by testator as per Ex.P14 and
thereafter he gifted suit properties in favour of defendant
under Ex.P1. It is settled law that, Will come into force only
after death of testator. Herein the case, the testator during
his lifetime himself has canceled Will and subsequently
O.S.No.25417/2014
34 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
executed gift in respect of suit properties in favour of his
wife Anjinamma.
43. In view of subsequent revocation of Will and
execution of gift deed by C. Krishnappa in favour of his wife
Anjinamma, plaintiff cannot claim any right or interest over
suit properties. Such suit filed by Ambujamma against
Anjinamma for relief of permanent injunction restraining
Anjinamma for alienating suit properties in favour of any
third persons is not maintainable. Hence, I answer Issue
No. 2 in OS No. 6585/2011 in the negative.
44. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.3(a) IN
O.S.NO.6585/2011 :- As already discussed subsequent to
execution of Will in respect of suit properties in favour of
plaintiff - Ambujamma, C. Krishnappa has executed deed
of revocation and also executed gift deed as per Ex.P.1
thereby gifted suit schedule properties in favour of his wife
Smt. Anjinamma. Once suit property bequeathed in favour
of Smt. Ambujamma has been subsequently revoked by C.
Krishnappa and same are gifted in favour of his wife Smt.
Anjinamma and said gift is acted upon, there is no breach
of obligation by Smt. Anjinamma respect of suit properties.
O.S.No.25417/2014
35 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
Further, there is no obligation on Smt. Anjinamma to
perform the same in favour of Smt. Ambujamma. As
already C. Krishnappa has revoke Will executed in favour
of Smt. Ambujamma and gifted suit properties to Smt.
Anjinamma, exercising her right by Smt. Anjinamma over
suit properties cannot be construed as invention of rights
of Smt. Ambujamma in respect of suit properties. Taking
into note of all these facts, Smt. Ambujamma failed to
establish all ingredients of Section 38 of Specific Relief Act,
so as to issue perpetual injunction against Smt.
Anjinamma as prayed for. Hence, I answer Additional
Issue No.3(a) in O.S.No.6585/2011 in the negative.
45. ISSUES No.4 AND 5 IN O.S.No. 25417/2014
AND ISSUE No.3 IN O.S.No.6585/2011 :- As these issues
are inter-related to each other and involves common
appreciation of facts and evidence on record, findings on
one issue are bearing on other issues, in order to avoid
repetition of facts and for convenience sake, all issues are
taken together for common discussion.
46. Aanjinamma has sufficiently proved that, her
husband, C. Krishnappa, who being an absolute owner of
O.S.No.25417/2014
36 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
suit schedule properties, earlier, bequeathed suit schedule
properties in favour of Ambujamma by executing registered
Will dated 15.01.1999 as per Ex. P13, subsequently as
Ambujamma not taken care of himself and his wife, he
executed deed of revocation as per Ex. P14 and canceled
Will in favour of Ambujamma and subsequently gifted suit
properties in favour of his wife Anjinamma under registered
gift deed dated 13.08.2009 as per Ex. P.1.
47. Once the Will in favour of Ambujamma in respect
of social properties has been legally and validly canceled by
C. Krishnappa, and subsequently he gifted suit properties
in favour of his wife under Ex. P1, Ambujamma cannot
claim any right, title or possession over suit schedule
properties. Ambujamma and tenants under her, who are
defendants in OS No. 25147 of 2014, under legal obligation
to hand over vacant possession of suit properties to
Anjinamma. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in
O.S.No.6585/2011 in the negative and Issues No.4 and
5 in O.S.NO.25417/2014 in the affirmative.
48. ISSUE NO.6 IN O.S.NO.25417/2014 ISSUE
NO.4 IN O.S.NO.6585/2011 :- In view of the above said
O.S.No.25417/2014
37 C/w
O.S.No.6585/2011
findings on Issues No.1 to 5 and Additional Issues No.1
and 2 in O.S.No.25417/2014 and Issues No.1 to 3 and
Additional Issue No.3(a) in O.S.No.6585/2011, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.25417/2014 is hereby decreed with cost.
The plaintiff Smt. Anjinamma being absolute owner of suit schedule mentioned properties got every right to get vacant possession of suit schedule properties from defendants.
The defendants No.1 to 15 are hereby directed by way of mandatory injunction to hand over vacant possession of suit schedule properties to plaintiff - Anjinamma within one month from date of decree.
Failing which plaintiff is at liberty to get vacant possession of suit schedule O.S.No.25417/2014 38 C/w O.S.No.6585/2011 properties from defendants by fallowing due procedure known to law.
Suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.6585/2011 is hereby dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly. Keep the copy of the judgment in O.S.No.6585/2011 and original in O.S.No.25417/2014.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed & computerized by her, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 5th day of January, 2026).
Sd/-
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru. ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Smt. Anjinamma 20-02-2020.
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P.1 : Original Gift Deed dated 13.08.2009. Ex.P.2 : Original Will dated 29.06.2009. Exs.P.3 : Certified copy of khata certificates. to P.10 Exs.P.11 : Original two sale deeds.
O.S.No.25417/2014 39 C/w O.S.No.6585/2011 and P.12 Ex.P.13 : original registered Will dated 15.1.1999.
Ex.P.14 : Original Revocation of Will dated 16.6.2009.
Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of death certificate of C. Krishnappa.
Exs.P.16 : Legal notices. to P.30 Exs.P.31 : Postal acknowledgment. to P.38 Exs.P.39 : Reply notices. to P.47
3.LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Examined on:
D.W.1 : Smt. Ambujamma 10-11-2025.
4.LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Exs.D.1 : Two photographs. and D.2 Sd/-
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru. O.S.No.25417/2014 40 C/w O.S.No.6585/2011