Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayamma vs R Abbaiah Reddy on 1 February, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB
RFA No. 1139 of 2009
C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1139 OF 2009 (PAR)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1141 OF 2009
IN RFA NO. 1139/2009
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S
1(A). V. GAYATHRI
W/O V. ASHWATH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT M. RAMAIAH REDDY COMPOUND
KODIHALLY, JEEVAN BHIMANAGAR POST
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND VARTHUR HOBLI
CHAYA BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
Location: High
Court of Karnataka BANGALORE
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. G.R. LAKSHMIPATHY REDDY AND
SRI. H.M. SHIVALINGAIAH, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. R. ABBAIAH REDDY
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB
RFA No. 1139 of 2009
C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
1(A). SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE R. ABBAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
1(B). A. JAGADISH
S/O LATE R. ABBAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
1(C). A. VIMALA
D/O LATE R. ABBAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
1(D). A. JYOTHI
D/O LATE R. ABBAIAH REDDY
W/O G. JANARDHAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT KODIHALLY
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
INDIRANAGAR(POST)
BANGALORE
2. R. VIJAYA RAGAV REDDY
S/O LATE M. RAMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
NO.108, 8TH CROSS ROAD
M. RAMAIAH REDDY COMPOUND
KODIHALLY, INDIRANAGAR POST
BANGALORE
3. SMT. CHOWDAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
4. SMT. PAPAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
4(A).SUNANDHA
DEAD BY HER LRS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB
RFA No. 1139 of 2009
C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
4(A)(A). M. RAMESH ASHWATH
S/O ASHWATANARAYANA REDDY
MAJOR
4(A)(B). SMT. PRATHIBA
D/O ASHWATANARAYANA REDDY
MAJOR
4(A) (A) AND 4(A)(B) ARE R/AT NO.29/1
17TH E MAIN, 72 CROSS, V BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-10
4(B). SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O NARAYAN REDDY
D/O LATE PAPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT KOPPA VILLAGE
HULIMANGALA POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 106
4(C). DR. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O A. SANJEEVA REDDY
D/O LATE PAPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT E/26/6-DRDO TOWNSHIP
HULIMANGALA POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 106
4(D). VENUGOPAL REDDY
S/O LATE PAPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT PAVAN GARDEN
NEAR KATTERAMMA TEMPLE
KODIHALLY, INDIRANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 008
...RESPONDENTS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB
RFA No. 1139 of 2009
C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
(BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1[A & B];
SRI. M. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1[C & D];
SRI. ASHOK B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R3 DEAD;
SRI. A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 [A TO C] & R5;
R4[D] - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA FILED IS U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST AND
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.06.2009 PASSED IN OS
NO.1646/1987 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR THE
RELIEF OF PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
IN RFA NO. 1141/2009
BETWEEN:
1. V. GAYATHRI
W/O ASHWATH
R/AT KODIHALLY VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 008
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GURURAJU C.D AND
SRI. SAMPATH A, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT RAMAIAH REDDY COMPOUND
KODIHALLY, JEEVAN BHIMANAGAR POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 008
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB
RFA No. 1139 of 2009
C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
2. R. ABBAIAH REDDY
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S
SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE R. ABBAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT KODIHALLY, VARTHUR HOBLI
ULSOOR POST
BANGALORE-560 008
3. A. JAGADISH
S/O LATE R. ABBAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT KODIHALLY, VARTHUR HOBLI
ULSOOR POST
BANGALORE-560 008
4. A. VIMALA
D/O LATE R. ABBAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT KODIHALLY
VARTHUR HOBLI
ULSOOR POST, BANGALORE-560 008
5. A. JYOTHI
D/O LATE R. ABBAIAH REDDY
W/O G. JANARDHAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT KODIHALLY, VARTHUR HOBLI
ULSOOR POST
BANGALORE-560 008
6. R. VIJAYA RAGAV REDDY
S/O LATE M. RAMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT KODIHALLY, VARTHUR HOBLI
ULSOOR POST
BANGALORE-560 008
7. PAPAMMA
DEAD BY LRS
SUNANDHA
W/O ASWATJAMARAUAMA REDDY
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB
RFA No. 1139 of 2009
C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
D/O LATE PAPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.29/1, 17TH E MAIN
72 CROSS V BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-10
7(A).M. RAMESH ASHWATH
S/O SRI. ASHWATHNARAYANA REDDY
SMT. SUNANADA
MAJOR
7(B).MRS. PRATHIBA
S/O SRI. ASHWATHNARAYANA REDDY
SMT. SUNANADA
MAJOR
R7(A) AND (B) ARE RESIDING
AT NO.29/1, 17TH E MAIN
72 CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR, BBMP
BENGALURU-560 010
8. PARVATHAMMA
W/O NARAYAN REDDY
D/O LATE PAPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT KOPPA VILLAGE
HULIMANGALA POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 106
9. DR. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O A. SANJEEVA REDDY
D/O LATE PAPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT 3/26/6-DRDO TOWNSHIP
CV RAMAN NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-93
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB
RFA No. 1139 of 2009
C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
10. VENUGOPAL REDDY
S/O LATE KATE PAPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT PAVAN GARDEN
KATTERAMMA TEMPLE KODIHALLY
INDIRANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 008
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. G.R. LAKSHMIPATHY REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. M. HANUMANTHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. M. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & 5;
SRI. ASHOK B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. K. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO 9;
R10, R7(A & 7(B) ARE SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.06.2009 PASSED IN OS
NO.1646/1987 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-3), DISMISSING
THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF THEREIN FOR PARTITION,
MESNE PROFITS AND ALSO DISMISSING THE LRS OF
DEFENDANT NO.4 AND DEFENDANT NO.5 THEREIN FOR
SHARE.
THESE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF THIS DAY, RAMACHANDRA D.
HUDDAR J., DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB
RFA No. 1139 of 2009
C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2009, passed in O.S. No.1646/1987 by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore City (CCH-3). RFA No. 1139/2009 is filed by the plaintiff in the said suit challenging the dismissal of her claim for partition and separate possession, mesne profits, and other reliefs concerning the suit schedule properties. RFA No. 1141/2009 is filed by Defendant No.5 in the said suit, contesting the rejection of her claim based on a Will purportedly executed by her grandmother Smt. Chowdamma.
2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the parties to these appeals are referred to by their respective ranks as assigned in the trial Court. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
3. The suit was initially filed against Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. During the pendency of the proceedings, Defendant No. 1 passed away and his legal representatives were brought on record. Subsequently, Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 also passed away. The legal representatives of Defendant No. 3 were already on record, as they were the plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Upon the demise of Defendant No. 4, their legal representatives were brought on record and shown as Defendant Nos. 4(a) to 4(d). Following the demise of Defendant No. 3, Defendant No. 5 filed an interim application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to be impleaded as a party to the suit. This request was based on the claim that Defendant No. 5 was a legatee under a Will allegedly executed by the deceased Defendant No. 3 during her lifetime, wherein she bequeathed her purported share in the suit schedule properties. Pursuant to the application, the cause-title in the plaint was amended to reflect these changes. For clear understanding of the relationships
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 between the parties involved, a genealogical chart is provided below:
Genealogy Late Ramaiah Reddy (Died on 04/12/1986) & Late Smt. Chowdamma Wife (Deft. No.3) Late Smt. Papamma Smt. Jayamma Late R. Abbaiah Reddy R.Vijayaraghava (daughter (daughter-Plaintiff) (Son Deft No.1) Reddy Deft No.4) w/o (Son Deft No.2) Late Venkataramana Reddy V. Gayathri (Deft. no.5) D.1(a) D.1(b) D.1(c) D.1(d) Smt. Sarojamma A. Jagadish A. Vimala A. Jyothi (Wife) (Son) (daughter) (daughter) wife of wife of Janardhana G. Janardhana Reddy Reddy LRs Smt. Sunanda Parvathamma Susheelamma Venugopala Reddy w/o Aswatha w/o Narayana w/o A. Sanjiva [D.4(d)] naraya Reddy Reddy Reddy [D.4(b)] [D.4(c)] [D.4(a)]
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 The Brief facts presented by the plaintiff in her plaint, relevant for the disposal of these appeals, are as under -
4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking relief for partition, separate possession of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds, mesne profits, and costs of the suit. Her case is that her father, late M. Ramaiah Reddy, was the propositus of the family and passed away on December 4, 1986, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4 as his legal representatives. Defendant No. 3 is the wife of late M. Ramaiah Reddy, named Smt. Chowdamma.
5. In the wedlock between M. Ramaiah Reddy and Smt. Chowdamma, four children were born i.e, the plaintiff, Jayamma, defendant No. 4, Papamma (both daughters), and defendants No. 1 and 2 (both sons). The plaintiff states that she was married to her maternal uncle's son, Venkataramana Reddy, and they had one daughter, defendant No. 5, V. Gayathri, who is deaf and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 dumb. Defendant Nos. 4(a) to 4(d) are the children of deceased defendant No. 4, Papamma, as per the cause title.
6. The plaintiff contends that the suit schedule properties described in Schedules 'A' to 'J' of the plaint are joint family properties acquired by her father, M. Ramaiah Reddy. According to her, her father passed away intestate on December 4, 1986. He was the Jodidar of Kodihally Village and after the enactment of the Inam Abolition Act, the lands were vested with the Government. Subsequently, on her father's application, 'A' schedule lands were registered in his name as an occupant.
7. The plaintiff asserts that her husband passed away on February 10, 1975, leaving behind herself and defendant No. 5. After her husband's demise, she returned to her parental home and resided with her father in Kodihally. It was her father, M. Ramaiah Reddy, who managed all the properties, including constructing
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 numerous houses. Many of these houses were leased out. In addition to immovable properties, he owned house properties in areas such as Ulsoor, Sampangiram Nagar and other locations within the limits of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, the Sanitary Board, and other areas, as described in the suit schedule.
8. She further alleges, that although some properties are nominally registered in the names of defendants No. 1 and 2, they are not their self-acquired properties. Instead, they are part of the joint family properties. She asserts her right to 1/5th share in all the properties listed in the suit schedule.
9. The plaintiff states that, since defendants Nos. 1 and 2 neglected to care for her and her daughter, she demanded a partition in December 1986. Upon denial, she filed this suit seeking the aforementioned reliefs. Accordingly, she prays that the suit be decreed as prayed for.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 10. Pursuant to the summons, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and filed a joint written statement. In their statement, they admitted the relationship as stated by the plaintiff in her plaint. They acknowledged that the plaintiff and the 4th defendant are the married daughters of the deceased Ramaiah Reddy and Chowdamma, and that they themselves are the sons. While admitting that Ramaiah Reddy passed away on December 4, 1986, they denied the claim that he died intestate. Furthermore, they contended that the description of the properties mentioned in the plaint is inaccurate.
11. The specific defence of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is that, until 1969, they resided with their father as members of a Hindu Joint Family. However, in 1969, a partition took place, and they became separate from the joint family. They asserted that Item Nos. 15 and 16 mentioned in the 'A' schedule did not belong to their father. According to them, these properties were merely conveyed to their father as security for loans extended
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 by him to the original owners of the properties, with a condition for repayment. They further claimed that they were never in possession of these properties.
12. While admitting that occupancy rights were granted in the name of their father, they contend that, their father did not have absolute ownership, title, or possession over the properties. They contend that, Item Nos. 1 to 9 and 12 listed in the 'A' schedule, half of Item Nos. 1 to 13 and 15 in the 'E' schedule, and the house in Ulsoor mentioned in the 'G' schedule were ancestral and joint family properties. These properties were allegedly shared among their father, his brother, and others and were allotted to their father during a partition effected in 1945.
13. Additionally, they claimed that Item Nos. 10, 11, 13, and 14 from the 'A' schedule, the properties listed in the 'B' schedule, Item Nos. 9, 10, and 14 in the 'E' schedule, and Item Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in the 'C' schedule belonged to the joint family of Ramaiah Reddy
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 and Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. They further stated that these properties were acquired through the income generated by the joint family.
14. The specific defence of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is that, in 1969, their father, as the Karta of the joint family, effected a partition among himself, Defendant No. 1, and Defendant No. 2. Consequently, their father came into possession of the properties allotted to him, identified as 'A' schedule property mentioned in the written statement. Defendant No.1 received the share described as the 'B' schedule property and the 'C' schedule property was allotted to Defendant No. 3. Therefore, the joint family properties of Ramaiah Reddy and his two sons, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, had already been partitioned.
15. Item Nos. 1 to 14 were registered in their father's name, and he was in possession and enjoyment of these properties until his demise. They claimed that Serial Nos. 3, 4, 10, and 14 were acquired by the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 Government and the compensation for these properties was apportioned and shared among them. They denied that their father was the Jodidar of Kodihally Village and also refuted the claim that the properties listed in the 'B' to 'H' suit schedules were the self-acquired properties of Ramaiah Reddy. Furthermore, they asserted that the plaintiff had included other unrelated properties in the suit schedules and contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share.
16. After the partition, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 acquired certain properties through their own earnings which cannot be classified as joint family properties. They also established their own businesses. It is further contended that, after her marriage, plaintiff lead a happy married life with her husband. However, for reasons best known to her, she left her husband's company, and both she and her husband began residing separately in Kodihally. They admitted that her husband passed away on February 10, 1975, leaving behind the plaintiff and
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 Defendant No. 5 as his legal heirs. They stated that the plaintiff and her aunt lived together but, denied the plaintiff's claim that she started residing in her parents' house after her husband's death. They also denied the allegation that they neglected her.
17. It is contended that, oral partition had already taken place in 1969, followed by a written memorandum of partition, and hence plaintiff cannot claim any share. The properties allotted during the partition were described as 'A,' 'B,' and 'C' properties in the memorandum of partition and have been referred to as 'X,' 'Y,' and 'Z' in the written statement for convenience. This partition was acted upon, and their names are reflected in the relevant revenue records. They contend that, the plaintiff's claim for partition is baseless and unfounded.
18. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 further contended that their father, Ramaiah Reddy, out of love and affection, bequeathed the properties allotted to him by
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 executing a Will dated November 30, 1986, in favour of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. They asserted that the Will was executed while their father was in a sound state of mind, thereby making them the absolute owners of the properties left behind by him. Consequently, they took possession of the properties bequeathed to them under the Will, which has been acted upon. They also claimed that there was no occasion for the plaintiff to demand partition.
19. Defendant No. 5 filed a consenting written statement supporting the plaintiff's plaint and its averments. Defendant No. 5 further claimed that Defendant No. 3, her grandmother, during her lifetime and in a sound state of mind, executed a Will dated September 21, 1989. By virtue of this Will, Defendant No. 5 became the owner of the properties left behind by Defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 5 stated that since she was deaf and dumb and was cared for by the plaintiff, Defendant No. 3 executed the Will in her favour.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
20. In response to this written statement, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed a rejoinder denying all assertions made by Defendant No. 5. Furthermore, Defendant No. 4 also claimed a share in the properties. As a result, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 prayed for the dismissal of the suit, while Defendant No. 4 (now represented by her legal representatives) and Defendant No. 5 prayed for the reliefs claimed in their respective written statements.
21. In light of the conflicting pleadings presented by both parties, the learned Trial Court framed total of eight issues, along with four additional issues, which are as follows:
1. "Whether the Plaintiff proves that the properties are the absolute properties of Ramaiah Reddy and died intestate on 4.12.1986?
2. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 proves separation from joint family after 1969?
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
3. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 proves that there was partition between them and Ramaiah Reddy?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the properties are the joint family properties and the plaintiff is entitled one fifth share?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits?
6. Whether the Court fee paid is sufficient?
7. Whether the plaintiff and the third defendant entitled for share?
8. What Decree or Order?
Additional issues
1. Does the Defendant No.5, proves that original Defendant No.3 Smt. Chowdamma executed a Will dated 21.09.1989 and bequeathed her interest in the suits schedule properties as contended?
2. Whether the Defendant No.5 further proves that by virtue of Will Deed dated 21.09.1989 executed by Late Chowdamma, she has succeeded to the suit schedule properties and
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 as such, she is entitled to get a share in it equal to that of the plaintiff?
3. Do the defendants No.1 and 2 proves that the defendant No.5, is not the only L.R. of original defendant No.5 Smt.Chowdamma as contended?
4. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 further proves that the alleged Will Deed dtd:
21.09.1989 executed by Chowdamma is a got up and concocted document as contended".
22. To substantiate her case, the plaintiff personally took the witness stand as PW1 and introduced documents marked as Exs.P1 to P59, thereby concluded her evidence. In rebuttal, the defendants presented the testimony of seven witnesses, designated as DWs.1 to 7, and submitted documents marked as Exs.D1 to D310, thereby closed their case.
23. Upon hearing the arguments and carefully considering both the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court rejected the evidence of the plaintiff, as well as that of Defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The Court
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 determined that a partition had already taken place in 1969, which had been duly executed. It further held that the late Ramaiah Reddy had executed a Will during his lifetime, while in a sound state of mind, in favour of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, thereby making them the absolute owners of the properties bequeathed to them. The Court also discredited the alleged Will said to have been executed by Smt. Chowdamma in favour of Defendant No. 5. As a result, the Court dismissed both the plaintiff's suit and Defendant No.5's claim.
24. Consequently, the plaintiff has now approached this Court challenging dismissal of her suit, while Defendant No. 5 has filed a separate appeal, as mentioned above, contesting the Court's findings concerning the alleged Will executed by Smt. Chowdamma in her favour.
25. The learned counsel for the appellant in RFA No.1139/2009 would ardently contends that, the learned Trial Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit is erroneous.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 He argues that, under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which recognizes a daughter as a coparcener, and considering that the defendants have failed to present credible and legally admissible evidence, the Trial Court should have ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting her 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties.
26. He would further submit that, although the defendants have relied upon Ex.D9, this document is unregistered and has never been formally acknowledged as a partition deed. As the schedule properties are joint family properties and no partition has taken place, learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Udaya Holla, asserts that the Trial Court should have properly considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff, including documents marked Exs.P1 to P59. According to him, Ex.D9 was never acted upon, and as such, the properties must be regarded as joint family properties belonging to both the plaintiff and the defendants. Therefore, under the
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff is entitled to her rightful share.
27. Additionally, learned Senior Counsel would submit that, while Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 rely on the purported Will of Ramaiah Reddy, it is significant that the testator passed away within four days of allegedly executing the Will. This raises doubts regarding his mental capacity at that time and his ability to execute a valid Will. Moreover, the fact that the Will makes no provision for the plaintiff's maintenance--she being a widow or for her daughter, who is deaf and dumb, further casts doubt on the Will's authenticity. Learned Senior Counsel argues that these suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will have not been dispelled by the defendants.
28. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, a thorough examination of the testimony of the attesting witnesses, alongside the evidence of R. Vijayaraghava Reddy (Defendant No. 2), reveals that the defendants
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 have not substantiated their defence in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the witnesses presented by the defendants fail to inspire confidence in their assertions. Learned Senior Counsel also points out that the testator, being 85 years old and suffering from trembling hands, did not have his signatures sufficiently validated, thereby further undermining the authenticity of the Will.
29. The plaintiff highlights the following suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will:
(a) Exclusion of wife, daughter, deaf and dumb grand-daughter in the said Will and thus the said Will is unnatural. No explanation whatsoever in the said Will about their exclusion.
(b) Testator was 85 years old and his hands were shaking and he was suffering from nerve problem and was unable to execute the Will as he was not in sound state of mind.
(c) Recitals in the Will do demonstrate about favouring defendant Nos.1 and 2 only and the reasons for the same is lacking.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
30. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the aforementioned suspicious circumstances have not been dispelled, and it is inconceivable that the testator would have disinherited his wife, daughters, and grandchild. He further points out that even item No.17 of the schedule properties is conspicuously absent from the Will. In support of his argument, the learned Senior Counsel cites the following judgments:
(i) Kavita Kanwar v. Pamel Mehta and Others -
(2021) 11 SCC 209.
(ii) Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Others -
(2020) 9 SCC 1.
(iii) Union of India and Others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others - (2014) 2 SCC 269.
(iv) Rani Purnima Debi and Another v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and Another - AIR 1962 SC 567.
(v) H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others - AIR 1959 SC 443.
(vi) Kalyan Singh, London Trained Cutter, Johri Bazar, Jaipur v. Smt. Chhoti and Others - (1990) 1 SCC 266.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
31. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents contend that, the learned Trial Court, after considering all the evidence, rightly concluded that the plaintiff has no case. It is submitted that, as partition had already been effected in 1969 between Ramaiah Reddy and his two sons (defendants Nos. 1 and 2), and the partition had been duly executed, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit seeking partition. According to the respondents, the deceased, Ramaiah Reddy, had an immense affection for defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who had been caretakers for him, and, out of love and affection, he executed the Will bequeathing his properties allotted to him in the 1969 partition.
32. Moreover, the Will allegedly provides for the welfare of the plaintiff by assigning her house properties. It also includes a provision that until the lifetime of defendant No. 3, she would be under the care and custody of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the respondents further contends that the plaintiff,
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 wielding considerable influence over defendant No. 3, forcibly took her to her house and fabricated a Will purportedly executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of her daughter. The respondents assert that the plaintiff actively participated in the creation of the Will, which was allegedly executed while defendant No. 3 was bedridden and unable to execute any document. Consequently, they argue that, the Will allegedly executed by Smt. Chowdamma in favour of defendant No. 5 is a fabricated, concocted document, which confers no legal right upon defendant No. 5.
33. The learned counsel for the legal representatives of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 supports the plaintiff's case and defends the validity of the purported Will allegedly executed by defendant No. 3 in favor of defendant No. 5. According to the counsel, defendant No. 5, as the legatee of the Will, has lawfully acquired ownership of the properties left behind by the deceased- defendant No.3.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
34. The learned counsels representing both the plaintiff and the defendants have, in support of their respective submissions, referred to various pleadings, the evidence presented on record, both oral and documentary, as well as the findings of the learned Trial Court.
35. We have given careful and thorough consideration to the facts of the case and the arguments put-forth by both parties. In light of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on either side, we have reviewed the pleadings, the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and the findings of the learned Trial Court. In our view, the following points emerge for our consideration in this appeal:
i. Whether the suit schedule properties, as described in the suit schedule appended to the plaint, constitute the ancestral and joint family properties of Ramaiah Reddy, thereby entitling the plaintiff to her legitimate share in the same?
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 ii. Whether defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have successfully established the existence of a prior partition before 20.11.1969, and whether the memorandum of partition as per Ex.D9 is valid and binding?
iii. What is the legal effect of Ex.D9, the so-
called memorandum of partition?
iv. Whether defendants Nos.1 and 2 have proved that the deceased Ramaiah Reddy executed a Will as per Ex.D276 on 30.11.1986, the certified copy of which is produced at Ex.D258, when he was in sound state of mind and bequeathed the properties allotted to him as per Ex.D9 in their favor?
v. Whether defendant No. 5 has proved that the deceased, Chowdamma (defendant No. 3), during her lifetime, bequeathed her contingent share in the suit schedule properties by virtue of a Will dated 21.09.1989, executed when she was of sound mind, thereby making her the owner of the properties described in the Will marked as Ex.D5?
vi. Whether the findings of the trial Court are based on the evidence presented by both parties, or are they otherwise flawed? vii. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court warrant interference by this Court?
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 Points Nos. 1 to 3 are considered collectively, as they form the central issues for determination in this matter.
36. The crux of the plaintiff's case rests on the assertion that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of Ramaiah Reddy, and as his daughter, she is entitled to a share as a co-parcener. She contends that, due to the refusal of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to effectuate a partition, she was compelled to file a suit for partition. The plaintiff's claim hinges on her status as a co-parcener, which, following the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, entitles her to a share in the properties. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish her continued co-parcenership in the joint family, alongside defendant Nos. 1 to 3, and to demonstrate her entitlement as a co-parcener.
37. It is a well-established principle that while there is a presumption of the family being joint, there is no automatic presumption that all properties held jointly by the family are characterized as joint family properties.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 Even if the manager of the joint family holds ancestral or acquired properties, this alone does not transform the properties into joint family assets. The law stipulates that it is the responsibility of the party asserting that the properties are joint family properties to substantiate this claim with credible legal evidence. There must be appropriate pleadings and evidence to establish this. In light of this, it is imperative to carefully examine the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence presented, and determine whether the plaintiff has successfully established her claim to co-parcenary status.
38. Before delving into the other aspects of the case, certain undisputed facts must be acknowledged. The genealogy presented in the pleadings is not in dispute. It is also undisputed that M. Ramaiah Reddy passed away on 4.12.1986 and the plaintiff's husband passed away in 1975. Furthermore, the suit schedule properties were acquired by M. Ramaiah Reddy during
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 his lifetime as part of a partition between him and his brother. During his lifetime, he managed the properties and constructed several houses.
39. PW1, the plaintiff, has reiterated the assertions made in the plaint in her sworn testimony. She claims that following her father's death, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 assumed possession of the suit properties and managed the family's affairs. She also contends that her father-in- law had gifted certain portions of his properties in Belur Nagasandra Village to her mother, Chowdamma. In relation to those properties, her brothers filed a suit for partition. However, the plaintiff asserts that her father did not execute any formal documents concerning the properties given to her. She further testifies that her father maintained accounts for the construction of houses, and that seven houses were built on the land provided to her. The properties are partially leased out to others. According to her testimony, the khata for the houses was transferred about 16 to 17 years before her
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 testimony in Court. She further mentions a compromise in a suit involving the intervention of her father.
40. The plaintiff claims that her father, a landholder in Kodihally village, was not a Jodidar. She acknowledges a partition between her father and his brother about 40 to 45 years prior to her testimony. She asserts, for the first time, that the suit properties were purchased by her father before her birth. To circumvent the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, she claims that a memorandum of partition, Ex.D9, was created. Several of her assertions are contradicted by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff admits that the names of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 appear in relation to Schedule-D, E, and F properties, and acknowledges that she and her sister had filed a suit seeking an injunction against their brothers. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 claim that the plaintiff's intervention caused a dispute among the women of their family, though the plaintiff denies this.
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
41. The plaintiff concedes that both defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and their father, had separate ration cards. She also states that the 1969 partition appears to have been acted upon but, was created to comply with the Urban Land Ceiling Act. A thorough review of the plaintiff's testimony reveals several contradictions and admissions that suggest her lack of knowledge about key facts. The plaintiff admits that she was given certain properties by her father and allowed to construct houses on them. The property records reflect her name after the construction of the houses. However, she claims ignorance regarding how the khata was transferred to her name. She further admits that her husband was alive when her father sold the survey trees belonging to her husband. She has failed to produce documents to substantiate her claim that the suit properties are self-acquired properties of her father. Additionally, she admits receiving compensation for the acquisition of certain properties but has not provided records to support her claim.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
42. Notably, the plaintiff admits that, a partition took place between her father and his brother concerning their family properties. This admission undermines her claim that the suit properties are self-acquired by her father. She denies the 1969 partition and the allocation of five properties in Kodihally to her father's share, though she acknowledges the existence of properties described in Schedule-E and F that were allotted to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. However, the plaintiff has failed to provide evidence to support her claim that the suit properties were self-acquired by her father. Additionally, she has shown ignorance about her father and his brothers possessing independent ration cards. Her lack of knowledge, as evidenced in her cross-examination, casts doubt on her credibility and the factual basis of her claims.
43. DW4, R. Vijaya Raghav Reddy, the second defendant, testifies in alignment with the contents of the written statement filed by him and the first defendant.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 He acknowledges the familial relationship and provides a detailed account of his family's history. He states that his grandfather, Muniyappa, performed the marriage of his father and uncle. According to his testimony, following the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant No.4, all family members, except the plaintiff and defendant No.4, resided with their father, who was the "Karta" of their family. He asserts that the properties were acquired by his father through ancestral inheritance and, from the income derived from these ancestral properties, his father purchased additional properties. These properties, according to him, were also partitioned between his father and his uncle.
44. It is his evidence that the entire suit schedule property consists of ancestral properties, joint family properties, and self-acquired properties belonging to him and the first defendant. He further contends that, even prior to 1969, there was an oral partition of the ancestral and joint family properties between his father, the first
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 defendant, and himself. After this oral partition, they began living separately and enjoyed their respective shares of the properties acquired through this partition. In 1969, this oral partition was formalized and reduced into writing through a memorandum of partition, which, according to his evidence, has been implemented since the time of the oral partition. He identifies Ex.D9 as the memorandum of partition that reflects the division of properties.
45. Additionally, he states that in 1942, the HAL Factory was established near Kodihally, and the HAL Sanitary Board was formed at that time. As a result, the properties located within the jurisdiction of the HAL Sanitary Board, except for Item No. 6 in Schedule A, became non-agricultural lands and were converted into sites. He notes that Item No. 6 is a garden land that still exists. The properties listed in Schedule A include several sheet-roofed sheds and houses.
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
46. Regarding B-Schedule properties, he explains that these were acquired by his father through a government grant in a public auction. He further asserts that Items 1 and 2 in Schedule C do not belong to their family. However, Item 3 in Schedule C contains a residential house, which he identifies as the family's residential property. The family residence is situated jointly in Survey Nos. 219/1 and 220/2, and Item No. 5 is located in Survey No. 220/2, while Item No. 9 is situated within the A-schedule properties.
47. He further testifies that the properties listed in the D-schedule are his self-acquired assets, purchased in 1974 through a registered sale deed from one Papaiah of Kurubarahalli. With respect to the E-schedule, he states that Items 1, 15 sites formed in Survey Nos. 219/1, 218/1, 220/1, and 220/2. Item 14 of the E-schedule belongs to the first defendant, situated in Survey No. 218/1. He also confirms that Item 15 in the A-schedule
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 belongs to his father and his uncle, having been allotted to them in the partition.
48. He goes on to explain that Item 7 of the A- schedule, measuring 0.25 guntas in Survey No. 84/2, was divided between his uncle and father, each receiving 10 guntas, while the remaining 5 guntas were purchased by the first defendant from his maternal grandfather, Muniswamappa. Khathas were duly effected for these properties.
49. Throughout his testimony, DW4 has consistently maintained that, pursuant to Ex.D9, the properties were partitioned by metes and bounds even prior to 1969. He further asserts that, as partition has already taken place, plaintiff cannot seek a division of the properties again.
50. DW4 was subjected to a rigorous cross- examination by the plaintiff. However, throughout his cross-examination, DW4 consistently maintained his
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 position regarding the existence of an oral partition that took place well before 1969, as well as the memorandum of partition executed in 1969. All suggestions put forth to him were categorically denied. It is not disputed by the plaintiff that the properties were acquired by the government through land acquisition proceedings, in which the plaintiff, along with his mother and sister, were parties. The Court had issued notices to them, and they were awarded their respective shares in the compensation. This fact has not been contested by the plaintiff.
51. Further, it was revealed during the cross- examination that the taxes for the properties were paid independently by their father and by DW1 and DW2, each concerning the properties they owned. The suggestions made during the cross-examination reveal that, while the plaintiff concedes the existence of the oral partition and the contents of Ex.D9, she simultaneously denies the partition itself. Notably, in her pleadings,
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 there is no mention of the oral partition or Ex.D9. The plaintiff has sought a partition based on general allegations in her plaint, despite knowing about the prior partition. Her failure to plead about the partition or acknowledge about the existence of the document undermines her case, suggesting that she sought partition based on strategic considerations. The cross- examination directed at DW4 sought to challenge the authenticity of Ex.D9, yet DW4 unequivocally stated that the terms of Ex.D9 were dictated by his father, with the scribe, Patel Nanjareddy, recording the contents as instructed. It was admitted that Nanjareddy was a childhood friend of DW4's father, but this does not diminish the validity of his involvement in the execution of the document. The witnesses to Ex.D9 were from the same village but were not related to either the plaintiff or the defendants. One of the witnesses, Govind Reddy, is no longer alive, while Y.V. Annaiah, another witness, hails from Yelachenahalli Village. DW4 confirmed that movable properties were not included in the partition
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 under Ex.D9. He further testified that even today, he and his brother reside in separate houses. He denied the suggestion that Ex.D9 was fabricated or created by him and defendant no.1. Thus, the cross-examination of DW4 solidifies the fact that there was an oral partition prior to 1969, and that Ex.D9 was formalized in writing in 1969. When examined, Ex.D9 was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.50/- on 20.11.1969, in the presence of the Panchayat members. The document explicitly states that an oral partition had occurred before 20.11.1969 in order to resolve family disputes. According to the terms of the oral partition, the properties were to be enjoyed by the father of the plaintiff, Ramaiah Reddy, and his two sons, i.e., defendant nos. 1 and 2. The key recital in Ex.D9 regarding the oral partition reads as follows:
"¸À£ï ¸Á«gÀzÀ MA¨sÉå£ÀÆgÀ CgÀªÀvÉÆÛA¨sÀvÀÛ£É E¸À« £ÀªÉA§gÀÄ ªÀiÁºÉ vÁjÃPÀÄ E¥ÀàvÀÛgÀ®Äè, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ r¹ÖçPïÖ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÀvÀÆðgÀÄ ºÉÆç½, ºÉZï.J.J0ï. ¸Áå¤lj ¨ÉÆÃrðUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ PÉÆÃrºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ 0ÉÃlÄ ²æà ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ »jAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ, ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 70 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì¼Àî JA.gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå gÉrØAiÀiÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß »jAiÀĪÀÄUÀ Dgï C§âAiÀÄå gÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JgÀqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ «dAiÀÄgÁWÀªÀ gÉrØ DzÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ F PɼÀUÀqÉ ¸ÁQëºÁQgÀĪÀ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÆRÛ F ªÉÆzÀ0Éà £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ UÉÆAzÀ® ¸ÀªÀĸÉåUÁV £ÁªÀÅ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ dĨÁ£É jÃw £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ D¹Û ¥Á¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ C jÃw £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä £ÀªÀÄä ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §AzÀ D¹Û ¥Á¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁV C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ jÃw £ÀªÀÄä ¨sÁUÁA±À «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀ «zsÀªÁzÀ zÁR0ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀîzÉ EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ F ªÉÆzÀ0Éà £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ «¨sÁUÀ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¢ðµÀ×¥Àr¸À®Ä PÁUÀzÀ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä £ÀªÀÄä ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀiÁqÀPÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀºÀ zÁR0É £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ »AzÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ «¨sÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £ÀªÀÄä £ÀªÀÄä ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §AzÀ ºÀAaPÉ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À µÉqÀÆå0ï ¥ÀnÖ ªÀiÁr D 'J', '©' '¹' µÉqÀÆå0ï ¥ÀnÖUÀ¼À°è CAzÀgÉ 'J' µÉqÀÆå0ï£À°è vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æà JA.gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå gÉrØAiÀiÁzÀ £À£ÀUÀÆ '©' µÉqÀÆå0ï£À°è vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ Dgï. C§âAiÀÄå gÉrØAiÀiÁzÀ £À£ÀUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ '¹' µÉqÀÆå0ï£À°è vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ «dAiÀÄgÁWÀªÀ gÉrØUÀÆ ªÉÄÃ0É ºÉýzÀ »A¢£À dĨsÁ£É ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è §AzÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ 'J', '©' '¹' µÉqÀÆå0ïUÀ¼À M¦àUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À»"
52. At the time of marking this document, neither the plaintiff nor the contesting defendants raised any objection.
53. DW.6, Y.V. Annaiah, testified before the trial Court regarding the oral partition between Ramaiah Reddy and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 prior to 1969. He also provided evidence concerning Ex.D9, affirming that he was present when Ex.D9 was written. According to his testimony, Ramaiah Reddy instructed the writing of Ex.D9, and the scribe recorded it accordingly. He signed Ex.D9 as per Ex.D9(d) to D9(g), along with Ramaiah
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 Reddy and his two sons, as well as the attesting Panchayathdars. Annaiah confirmed that he is not related to Ramaiah Reddy. Despite cross-examination by the plaintiff and the contesting defendants, Annaiah remained consistent in his statement regarding his involvement in the preparation of Ex.D9.
54. Similarly, DW.7, Nagaraj Ranganna, an independent witness and deed writer, testified before the trial Court. He confirmed that, following Ramaiah Reddy's instructions, he visited Ramaiah Reddy's house and wrote Ex.D9 in the presence of witnesses and Panchayathdars. He identified the persons present, including Patel Nanjareddy and others, and confirmed the contents of Ex.D9. Ranganna further affirmed that Ramaiah Reddy was in good health when the document was written. He identified his signature as the scribe (Ex.D9[m] to D9[p]) and the signatures of Ramaiah Reddy and his sons (Ex.D9[h] to D9[l]). The plaintiff did
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 not effectively cross-examine DW.7 to dispute his evidence.
55. Ex.D8 is a statement made by Ramaiah Reddy before the Special Tahsildar for Inam Abolition, in which he explained how he acquired the properties mentioned in the statement. This document, showing how Ramaiah Reddy acquired the properties listed in the schedule, was not disputed by the plaintiff or other contesting defendants.
56. Upon a thorough review of the pleadings, evidence, and documents, it is clear that there was an oral partition between Ramaiah Reddy and his two sons, and that this partition was reduced to writing as per Ex.D9, which has been consistently acted upon. The question now arises whether a Hindu father, under the Mitakshara law, has the authority to effect a partition. According to "Manes Hindu Law," XIV Edition, at page 81 (para. 471), the following text is found-
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 "A Hindu father under the Mithakshara can effect a partition between himself and his sons without their consent. This text has been held to apply not only to property acquired by the father himself but, also to ancestral property. The father has power to effect division not only between himself and his sons but, also between the sons inter se."
57. The learned author, in the above statement of law, has referred to several judgments rendered by the Courts. According to Hindu Law, a father is competent to make a partition during his lifetime, and such a partition binds his sons. This is not because the sons have consented to the arrangement but because the father has the authority to do so, although subject to certain restrictions in the family's interest. Therefore, under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, a father has the undisputed right and privilege to effect a partition between himself and his sons, whether they are major or minor, without their consent. He may divide the property physically or merely divide the status. However, the partition must be fair and equal.
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
58. If this principle is applied to the present case, it is evident that Ramaiah Reddy, during his lifetime, effected the oral partition and subsequently effected the memorandum of partition as per Ex.D9. Following his instructions, the memorandum of partition was created. This partition was not disputed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, his sons, and neither the plaintiff nor defendant No. 4 raised any objection at that time. To substantiate that the partition was effected and acted upon, all the sharers, namely Ramaiah Reddy and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, began living separately, cultivating their respective properties, and conducting independent proceedings before the Land Acquisition Court. The compensation awarded was distributed among the sharers, including the plaintiff, in accordance with their respective shares. Therefore, as the learned trial Court rightly observed, the claim that no partition occurred holds no evidentiary value, as alleged by the plaintiff.
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
59. It is a settled principle of law that when a family arrangement or partition occurs and a subsequent memorandum of partition is drawn up, such a memorandum of partition does not need to be registered. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Roshan Singh & Ors vs Zile Singh & Ors1, laid down this principle in Para-16 of the judgment, where it was held as follows:
"16. In the present case, admittedly there was a partition by metes and bounds of the agricultural lands effected in the year 1955 and the shares allotted to the two branches were separately mutated in the revenue records. There was thus a disruption of joint status. All that remained was the partition of the ancestral residential house called rihaishi, the smaller house called baithak and ghers/ghetwars. The document Exh.P-12 does not effect a partition but merely records the nature of the arrangement arrived at as regards the division of the remaining property. A mere agreement to divide does not require registration. But if the writing itself effects a division, it must be registered. See: Rajangam Ayyar v. Rajangam Ayyar, LR (1923) 69 1 AIR 1988 SC 881
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 IA 123 and Nani Bai v. Gita Bai, AIR (1958) SC 706. It is well-settled that the document though unregistered can however be looked into for the limited purpose of establishing a severance in status, though that severance would ultimately affect the nature of the possession held by the members of the separated family as co-tenants. The document Exh.P-12 can be used for the limited and collateral purpose of showing that the subsequent division of the properties allotted was in pursuance of the original intention to divide. In any view, the document Exh.P-12 was a mere list of properties allotted to the shares of the parties."
60. When a document establishes a partition by metes and bounds, it does not require registration if it has already been acted upon. This document, upon careful consideration, can be used to demonstrate the status and validity of the partition, as asserted by the defendants. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors.2, addressed the issue of "whether a family settlement or family arrangement requires compulsory registration". The Court held that, the necessity for 2 (2020) 9 SCC 706
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 registration depends on whether the document: (a) creates or transfers a right in immovable property for the first time, or (b) is a memorandum recording pre- existing rights or arrangements already settled between the parties concerning immovable property. It was concluded that only in case (a) would compulsory registration be required.
61. In the present case, the portion extracted above clearly indicates that an oral partition was effected prior to 1969 and was subsequently reduced to writing as per Ex.D9. This document is binding, and upon reading the full text of Ex.D9, it is evident that it records the terms of a family settlement in a definitive form. As per this partition, the properties listed in 'A' schedule were allotted to Ramaiah Reddy, the 'B' schedule properties to defendant No. 1, and the 'C' schedule properties to defendant No. 2. The evidence provided by DW.1 and his witnesses supports the contention that the settlement was voluntary and free from any fraud,
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 coercion, or undue influence. It represents an equitable division between the father and his two sons.
62. Therefore, as per the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment, Ex.D9 does not require compulsory registration. The plaintiff has not pleaded any facts to suggest that Ex.D9 was the result of fraud or misrepresentation, and only bare suggestions were put forth to DW.4 and his witnesses. Upon considering all factual aspects, it can be conclusively stated that while the plaintiff has established that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of Ramaiah Reddy, she has failed to prove her legitimate share as claimed. Conversely, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have successfully demonstrated that an earlier partition took place before 1969, and Ex.D9, the Memorandum of Partition, was executed to formalize the prior oral partition, following the instructions of Ramaiah Reddy. This partition has been acted upon.
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
63. Therefore, as the learned trial Court rightly held, Ex.D9 is a valid document with legal effect and serves as the Memorandum of Partition, which does not require registration under the provisions of the Registration Act. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered partly in the 'Affirmative', while Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered in the 'Affirmative'.
POINT NO.4
64. It is the specific defence of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 that the deceased, Ramaiah Reddy, executed a Will (Ex.D276) on 30.11.1986, when he was in a sound state of mind, bequeathing his properties, which were allotted to him under Ex.D9, to Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. To substantiate this, Defendant No. 2, DW.4, has testified about the execution of the Will by his father in favour of himself and Defendant No. 1. DW.4 has been consistent in his testimony, stating that his father was in good health and of sound mind when the Will was executed. The plaintiff, however, argues that her father was 85 years old at the time of his death and had not made any
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 provision for her, her sister, or her deaf and dumb daughter. Hence, the plaintiff contends that the Will is invalid and surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
65. One significant issue raised by the plaintiff is that the Will-Ex.D276 which is also referred at Ex.D258 the certified copy, was executed on 30.11.1986, but Ramaiah Reddy passed away on 04.12.1986, just four days later. This short time frame, according to the plaintiff, raises doubts about the genuineness of the Will. However, to prove the validity of the Will, DW.4 has consistently testified that his father was in sound mind when the Will was executed, and that the Will bequeaths the properties described in Ex.D9, which were allotted to him.
66. To establish the proper attestation of the Will, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have examined DW.5, K.M. Krishna Reddy, an attesting witness. DW.5 testified that Ramaiah Reddy, who resided at Kodihally Village, had a close relationship with him and frequently visited his
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 home. He stated that Ramaiah Reddy and his wife were living together, while the plaintiff and the defendants lived separately. According to DW.5, approximately one month before the execution of the Will, Ramaiah Reddy had discussed giving his properties to his sons. Later, in November 1986, Ramaiah Reddy called DW.5 to his house to be present when the Will was written. On that occasion, Ramaiah Reddy, his wife, and others, including Shanbog Ramarao, Munireddy, Erappa, and Dr. Jayaram Reddy, were present. DW.5 further testified that Ramaiah Reddy instructed Mr. Ramarao, the scribe, to write the Will. After the Will was written, it was read aloud to all present, and Ramaiah Reddy accepted its contents, signing both his signature and thumb impression due to his shaking hands. The signatures of the attesting witnesses, Erappa, Munireddy, DW.5, and Dr. Jayaram Reddy, were then affixed to the Will, with each witness identifying their signatures on Ex.D276 (Ex.D276(a) to Ex.D276(k)).
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
67. DW.5 also testified that the Will was registered in 1987, after the death of Ramaiah Reddy. The Sub- Registrar issued a notice to him, and after recording the statements of the attestors, the Will was duly registered. Although DW.5 underwent intensive cross-examination by both the plaintiff's counsel and the contesting defendants, his testimony remained consistent, and no significant discrepancies were highlighted to undermine his evidence.
68. To further support the execution of the Will, the defendants rely on the evidence of the scribe, Mr. K. Ramarao, who was examined in a civil suit (O.S. No.6368/1980) and testified that, at the instructions of Ramaiah Reddy, he wrote the Will marked as Ex.D276. Mr. Ramarao identified the signature of the testator, Ramaiah Reddy, and the signatures of the witnesses. The cross-examination of Mr. Ramarao confirms that he was the one who scribed the Will as per the instructions of the testator.
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
69. In light of the combined evidence of DW.4, the attesting witness, and the scribe, it is clear that the deceased, Ramaiah Reddy, was in a sound state of mind when he executed the Will (Ex.D276), which bequeaths the 'A' schedule properties allotted to him under Ex.D9 to his two sons, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The evidence of the witnesses, along with the formalities of execution and registration, supports the legitimacy of the Will. Therefore, the execution of the Will, Ex.D276, is established and should be upheld as a valid document.
70. Upon reviewing the provisions of Section 63 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that compliance with both is essential for the validity of a Will. A plain reading of these sections indicates that the requirements set out under Section 63 of the Hindu Succession Act must be strictly followed for the execution of the Will to be properly proved under Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
71. In the recent judgment of Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, a Will is a testamentary instrument by which a person disposes of his property during his lifetime to be effective upon his death. It is a legally recognized method of bequeathing property and carries an inherent sanctity. Since the testator, at the time of executing the Will, will not be available to testify regarding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, stringent requirements for proving the validity of the Will have been statutorily prescribed to prevent any manipulation or fraud.
72. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case referred to the principles laid down in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma4, which set out the essential criteria for proving the validity and execution of a Will. These principles, detailed 3 (2023) 9 SCC 734 4 AIR 1959 SC 443
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 in paragraphs 10.1 to 10.11 of the judgment, provide a clear framework for ensuring that the execution of a Will is in accordance with legal standards.
"10.1. The Court has to consider two aspects :
firstly, that the will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last will executed by him;
10.2. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied.
10.3. A will is required to fulfil all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say:
(a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a will;
(b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary;
(c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have 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
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures;
(d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required; 10.4. For the purpose of proving the execution of the will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of Court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined;
10.5. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator;
10.6. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with;
10.7. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the will fails to prove its due execution, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence;
10.8. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution of the will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator's last will. In such
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier.
10.9. The test of judicial conscience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It requires to consider factors such as awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, nature and effect of the dispositions in the will; sound, certain and disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the will while acting on his own free will;
10.10. One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence et cetera has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation.
10.11. Suspicious circumstances must be "real, germane and valid" and not merely "the fantasy of the doubting mind [Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277] ". Whether a particular feature would qualify as "suspicious" would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Any circumstance raising suspicion legitimate in nature would qualify as a suspicious circumstance, for example, a shaky
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit, etc."
73. In addition to the statutory requirements discussed above, the propounder of the Will must establish the following elements:
(a) The testator executed the Will voluntarily, without any external pressure or influence.
(b) The testator possessed a sound state of mind at the time of execution.
(c) The testator was aware of the nature and implications of the Will.
(d) The Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.
74. Turning to the facts of the case, although the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff has raised arguments regarding the testator's age (85 years), his frail health, his shaking hands, his inability to sign, and his failure to make provisions for his deaf and dumb granddaughter and two daughters, the evidence presented by both the scribe and the attesting witnesses contradicts these claims. The scribe and attesting
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 witnesses have affirmed that the testator was in a sound state of mind when executing the Will and was capable of affixing both his signature and thumb impression. Furthermore, it is established that the testator had already made provisions for the plaintiff by allocating landed and house properties prior to the execution of the Will, which may have led him to decide not to include further provisions for her. While it is true that the testator passed away within four days of executing Ex.D276, the testimony of the scribe and the attesting witnesses confirms that he was in full possession of his faculties at the time of its execution. A thorough review of the record, when considered alongside the provisions of law and the precedents set by the Hon'ble Apex Court, reveals that the Will was duly executed by the testator, who was of sound mind, and was signed by him in the presence of witnesses, who attested to the document. The scribe and attesting witnesses consistently corroborate that the testator was fully aware of the
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 contents of the Will, which was read to him before he signed it.
75. As for the allegations made by the plaintiff and contesting defendants, we find no conclusive evidence in the record to suggest that the testator was in a compromised state of mind at the time of executing Ex.D276 or that the Will was executed under any suspicious circumstances. Additionally, no evidence has been presented to establish that the Will was a result of undue influence. The learned trial Court, having examined the intentions of the testator in making a testament in favor of his two sons, has rightly drawn its conclusions. The propounders of the Will have produced the scribe and attesting witnesses, whose testimonies affirm the testator's mental and physical condition at the time of execution. The celebrated judgment in H. Venkatachala Iyengar supra has clearly delineated the standard of proof required for establishing the validity of a Will, as distinct from other types of documents. The
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 relevant passage from the judgment is found on page 451, paragraph 18, which states:
"18. xxxx 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, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under Section 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 Sections 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, Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 a minor, may dispose of his property by will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is meant by the expression "a person of sound mind" in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. 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. Has the testator signed the will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will? Did he put his signature to the will knowing what it contained? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 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
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters."
76. When the aforementioned principles are applied to the present facts, it is our considered opinion that the learned trial Court has accurately interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of law, as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The trial Court has correctly concluded that the propounders of the Will have duly complied with the necessary legal requirements for proving the Will. Furthermore, the trial Court has provided a well-reasoned judgment upholding the validity of the Will. In light of this, we find no grounds to interfere with the trial Court's findings. Accordingly, point No. 4 raised above is answered in the 'Affirmative'.
Point NO.5:
77. The specific assertion of Defendant No. 5 is that the deceased, Chowdamma (third defendant), during her lifetime, executed a Will dated 21st September 1989, bequeathing her share in the suit
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 schedule properties. As a result, upon Chowdamma's demise, Defendant No. 5 claims to have become the absolute owner of the suit properties, as outlined in the Will marked as Ex.D5.
78. To substantiate the claims made in the Will, the Power of Attorney holder of Defendant No. 5, who is also her husband, has appeared before the trial Court and deposed on her behalf, citing that Defendant No. 5 is both deaf and mute and unable to provide evidence herself. The Power of Attorney holder has specifically stated that, during her lifetime, Chowdamma executed the Will in question (Ex.D5) in 1989.
79. He further testified that he hails from Gowribidnur, and that the plaintiff, Jayamma, is his mother-in-law, while the fourth defendant is Chowdamma's sister. He clarified that he had no knowledge of any legal proceedings between the plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, except concerning the suit properties in question. He confirmed that, along with the
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 plaintiff, he regularly attended Court hearings related to the civil suit filed by the plaintiff (OS No. 1646/1987).
80. The witness candidly admitted that Chowdamma never informed him of the Will's execution during her lifetime. He also confessed his ignorance regarding the names of the attestors, namely Devappa, Patel Ramaiah, and Narayanappa, and that he was not present when the Will was executed. According to his testimony, approximately three days before the Will's execution, Chowdamma requested his assistance in having a document written and registered. Following her request, he accompanied her to the Bar Association in Bengaluru, where she met with a lady advocate. The lady advocate advised Chowdamma to return after three days. When they reconvened, Chowdamma handed over a handwritten document to the advocate, who then directed him to have it typed. He proceeded to have the document typed on a white paper, which was reviewed
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 and approved by both Chowdamma and the lady advocate.
81. The witness further stated that he became aware of the content of the Will through his wife. Upon being shown a document in Court, he identified it but denied that it was the original document he had typed, though he acknowledged having typed the content on a white paper. He mentioned that the lady advocate had instructed him to ensure the typed matter was correct and to have it typed on stamped paper, which he subsequently did. According to the witness, the deceased Chowdamma ultimately executed the Will (Ex.D5) in favor of Defendant No. 5.
82. Defendant No. 5, in her capacity as the propounder of the Will, examined the scribe of the Will, Smt. Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, who testified as DW.2. According to her evidence, at the instructions of Chowdamma, she prepared the Will. DW.1, the husband of Defendant No. 5, did not mention in his testimony that
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 one Narayanappa accompanied them throughout the process. However, DW.2 stated that Narayanappa brought Chowdamma, who was a paralytic patient and had difficulty in walking, to her office. DW.1 had stated that they went to the Bar Association in Bengaluru, whereas DW.2 testified that Chowdamma and Narayanappa came directly to her office.
83. DW.2 further stated that, at the time of preparation of the Will, Chowdamma's mental condition was good, and she was capable of understanding the contents of the document. DW.2 identified Ex.D5 and confirmed that Chowdamma had taken the draft from her and had it typed. She also explained the contents of the Will to Chowdamma. According to DW.2, both Chowdamma and Narayanappa requested her to accompany them when the Will was to be registered. After a few days, they went together to the office of the Sub-Registrar in Bengaluru, where, in addition to Chowdamma, another young boy was present.
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009
84. The evidence provided by DW.2 suggests that DW.1, the husband of Defendant No. 5, was consistently present with Chowdamma from the time they met DW.2 until the registration of the Will. This implies that DW.1 played an active role in the creation and execution of the Will, Ex.D5. Furthermore, DW.2 was able to identify Chowdamma's thumb impression on the document, confirming its authenticity.
85. In her cross-examination, DW.2 specifically stated that it was Narayanappa who brought Chowdamma to her office to provide instructions for the preparation of the Will. She clarified that on that particular day, she did not take instructions but merely noted down the details regarding the Will. Narayanappa informed her that Chowdamma, his neighbour, wished to execute a Will. DW.2 also noted Chowdamma's health condition, mentioning that she was suffering from paralysis. After taking further instructions, DW.2 prepared a note sheet for drafting the Will, which was
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 typed on the date of its registration. However, the evidence presented by DW.1 contradicts this account. DW.1 specifically mentioned the presence of both himself, Ashwatha Reddy, and another elderly individual at the time of the registration of the Will.
86. When examining the testimonies of DW.1 and DW.2, both witnesses provided consistent accounts regarding the instructions given by Chowdamma for the preparation of the Will. Additionally, Defendant No. 5 examined H.M. Devappa, who claimed to be an attesting witness to the Will (Ex.D5). As per his testimony, at Chowdamma's request, he accompanied her to the Sub- Registrar's office, where he identified Ex.D5, the Will, and Chowdamma's thumb impression. He also identified the presence of DW.2 and confirmed his signature on Ex.D5 (p). During cross-examination, attempts were made to highlight certain interactions between Devappa and Jayamma, but he denied these claims. Devappa also denied allegations of any ill will between him and DWs. 1
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 and 2. He further stated that it was DW.1, Ashwatha Reddy, who called him to accompany Chowdamma. He unequivocally stated that the Will was not drafted in his presence but was written in the Sub-Registrar's office, where he, along with Ramaiah, Chowdamma, and Narayanappa, were present. According to him, DW.1 brought Chowdamma to the Sub-Registrar's office, where she executed the Will in favor of Defendant No. 5, Gayathri.
87. The evidence presented by DWs. 1 to 3 indicates active involvement of DW.1, the husband of Defendant No. 5, in the execution of the Will. As Defendant No. 5 is the beneficiary of the Will, and DW.1 is her husband, it is argued that this close involvement raises concerns about the genuineness of the Will. To further substantiate this claim, Defendant No. 2, K.R. Vijayaraghav Reddy, appeared before the trial Court as DW.4, asserting that the Will was a fabricated document. He discussed the earlier partition between his father and
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 uncle, as well as the 1969 partition between himself, his father, and his brother, along with the memorandum of partition (Ex.D9). According to his testimony, he was involved in business in Kodihally and looked after his bedridden mother, Chowdamma. He denied any involvement of Defendant No. 5 or the plaintiff in this care. DW.4 further stated that the Will set up by Defendant No. 5 was the result of coercion, fraud, and misrepresentation. He claimed that his mother was forcibly taken by the plaintiff while she was completely bedridden, and that the Will was created by Defendant No. 5 in collusion with the plaintiff in an attempt to seize the property through deceit.
88. Upon reviewing the entire testimony of DWs. 1 to 3, it is evident that a partition had already taken place as per Ex.D9, and at that time, Chowdamma's husband was still alive. Under Hindu law, a wife has no share in the property during her husband's lifetime; her succession rights only open upon his demise. In this
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 case, Ex.D258 came into existence well before Ex.D5. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have successfully established the Will executed by their father in their favor. The primary grievance of Defendant No. 5 and the plaintiff appears to be that no provision was made for Defendant No. 5's welfare and that no property was allocated to the plaintiff.
89. However, the evidence, particularly that presented by PW.1, indicates that property had been allocated to the plaintiff before the partition as per Ex.D9, and it was she who constructed houses based on a plan obtained by the deceased Ramaiah Reddy. The trial Court carefully considered the factual history of the Ramaiah Reddy family, from 1945 until his death, and concluded that no sufficient evidence has been presented by either the plaintiff or Defendant No. 5 to discredit the contents of Ex.D9, the memorandum of partition.
90. It is brought on record that, there was a severance of joint family status as far back as 1969, and
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 the partition occurred before the execution of Ex.D9, the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (HS Act), as amended by the Karnataka State Amendment and the 2005 Central Amendment, do not apply. The partition was carried out, and the partition deed was duly acted upon. Testimonies confirm that following the partition, deceased Ramaiah Reddy took steps to effect the changes in the revenue records (Waradi) to reflect the division of property, and subsequently, he began residing separately with Chowdamma, as did Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the partition deed was implemented, and the claims of Defendant No. 5 and the plaintiff do not alter the legally binding nature of the partition that occurred prior to the execution of Ex.D9.
91. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma5, the position of a daughter with respect to inheritance has been clarified. Regarding the Will propounded by 5 (2020) 9 SCC 1
- 79 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 Defendant No. 5, it is essential to prove the Will in accordance with the statutory provisions governing the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act, along with Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act, are relevant for this purpose. Section 59 of the Succession Act stipulates that a person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property through a Will. Section 63 of the Act further requires that the testator must either sign or affix a mark to the Will, or it must be signed by another person in the testator's presence and by their direction, with the signature or mark clearly indicating the intent to execute the document as a Will. This principle was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment in H. Venkatachala supra.
92. Despite Defendant No. 5 setting up the Will, the physical and mental capacity of the deceased Chowdamma to execute the Will has not been sufficiently established. She was suffering from paralysis, and the
- 80 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 evidence presented indicates that her mental condition was debilitated. Chowdamma had no right to the property after the partition, and in light of her husband's prior execution of a Will, it is improbable that Chowdamma still held rights to the property and could execute a Will in favor of Defendant No. 5. The disposition of property in this manner appears unnatural and unlikely, especially when considering the relevant circumstances brought forth by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
93. Furthermore, the evidence of DWs. 1 to 3 suggests that the execution of the Will may not have been the result of the testator's free will and intent. DW.1, the husband of Defendant No. 5, played a prominent role in the execution of the Will and was present throughout the process, acting as the beneficiary's spouse. The sequence of events such as the meeting with the advocate at the Bar Association, the visit to the office of the Sub-Registrar, and the execution of the Will has not been proved in accordance with legal
- 81 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 requirements. Inconsistencies in the evidence and incorrect recitals further undermine the credibility of the Will. While Defendant No. 5 has been impleaded based on Ex.D5, this alone is insufficient to prove the Will in accordance with the law. From these suspicious circumstances, it is reasonable to question the validity of Ex.D5 and conclude that the Will cannot be accepted as genuine.
94. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff contends that, in light of the suspicious circumstances outlined in the synopsis, the Will executed by Chowdamma in favour of Defendant No. 5 has been proved. While there is no dispute regarding the principles laid down in the cited judgments. The counsel emphasizes that, given the facts and circumstances of the case, including the partition of family properties that took place well before 1969 and was confirmed in 1969 as per Ex.D5, the status of the parties must be
- 82 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 considered under the legal framework that existed at that time.
95. At the time of the partition and severance of joint family status, which occurred before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff and her sister were not coparceners in the family of Ramaiah Reddy. Even if we consider the 1990 (Karnataka Amendment) for the sake of argument, it is important to note that the status of a daughter was only recognized as a coparcener under the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990, effective from September 30, 1994. Prior to that, under the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which was in force at the time of the partition, daughters did not have the status of coparceners and could not claim a share in the joint family property.
96. Furthermore, even under the provisions of the Karnataka Amendment, 1990, the daughter was granted the right to claim a share at the time of partition, and it is not permissible when partition had not already taken
- 83 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 place. In the present case, since the partition occurred long before the amendment, the provisions of Section 6A of the Hindu Succession Act, as inserted by the Karnataka Amendment, do not apply.
97. Additionally, the Central Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, which came into force on September 9, 2005, granted daughters the status of coparceners and recognized their birthright to coparcenary property. However, the proviso to Section 6 of the Act specifically clarifies that "nothing in the sub- section shall affect or invalidate any disposition, alienation, partition, or testamentary disposition that took place before December 20, 2004". Therefore, the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, including the recognition of daughters as coparceners, do not apply to the present case as the relevant transactions occurred prior to this date.
98. If this proviso is applied to the present facts of the case, it is clear that, a partition had taken place long
- 84 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 before 1969, and this partition was formalized in writing as a memorandum of partition under Ex.D9 in 1969. Furthermore, the Will set up by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, executed by Ramaiah Reddy in 1986, is duly proved in accordance with the law as per Ex.D276, which was created much before December 20, 2004. Therefore, the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, namely the Karnataka Amendment of 1990 and the Central Amendment of 2005, have no bearing on the present case.
99. The learned trial Court has also concluded that if Chowdamma had any entitlement to property as the wife of the deceased Ramaiah Reddy, she would only have had a share by virtue of her husband's death. However, under Ex.D276, Ramaiah Reddy bequeathed all of his properties to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, he made provisions for his daughter (the plaintiff) and wife, giving certain immovable properties to the plaintiff. The Will, Ex.D276, explicitly reads as under -
- 85 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 "£À£ÀUÉ E§âgÀÄ ºÉtÄÚªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ E§âgÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄUÀ½UÁV- ºÉtÄÚªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄUÀ¼À°è ²æêÀÄw. ¥Á¥ÀªÀÄä£À£ÀÄß, £À£Àß vÀAV ²æêÀÄw ¨ÉÊAiÀĪÀÄä£À ªÀÄUÀ ²æÃ. ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ®UÀß ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ -C½AiÀÄ D0ÁAiÀÄ:¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV CªÀgÀ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀzÉÆA¢UÉ EzÉà PÉÆÃrºÀ½îAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ ²æÃ. ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà ¥ËwAiÀiÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ0É £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æêÀÄw ¥Á¥ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀ¼À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ - CªÀgÀ D¹Û ¥Á¹ÛAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÉÄà ¸ÀÄRªÁV ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Á¥ÀªÀÄä£À ºÉtÄÚªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ0Éà PÁ®ªÁzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä Rað¤AzÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ £ÉgÀªÉÃj¹ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. C®èzÉ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä ¨sÁUÀªÁzÀ PÁ®zÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà¤UÉ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£À£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛêÉ, £À£Àß JgÀqÀ£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ dAiÀĪÀÄä£À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ²æêÀÄw ZËqÀªÀÄä£À vÀªÀÄä ²æÃ. ªÉAPÀlgÀªÀÄt¥Àà gÉrØAiÀĪÀjUÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÉÄÃ0É ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ C½AiÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ. ªÀÄĤ±ÁªÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ PÁ®ªÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ0É EzÉà PÉÆÃrºÀ½îAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ°è £À£Àß JgÀqÀ£Éà D½AiÀÄ ªÉAPÀlgÀªÀÄt¥Àà gÉrØ ¸ÀºÁ PÁ®ªÁzÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼À Dgï. C¨sÀAiÀÄågÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ.Dgï. «dAiÀÄ gÁWÀªÀgÉrØ DUÉÎ PÉ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄÄÛgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ D¹Û ¥Á¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÁUÉÎ £À£Àß »jAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Á¥ÀªÀÄä¤UÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JgÀqÀ£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ dAiÀĪÀÄä¤UÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ PÀnÖ¹PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÀÆ ¸ÀºÁ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ F ªÉÆzÀ0Éà ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ CªÀgÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀÄRªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F jÃw £À£Àß ºÉtÄÚªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀzÉÆA¢UÉ fêÀ£À £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ fêÀ£À £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, AiÀiÁjUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀ vÀgÀºÉAiÀÄ vÉÆAzÀgÉ K£ÀÆ EgÀĪÀÅ¢0Áè £À£ÀUÀÆ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ²æêÀÄw ZËqÀªÀÄä¤UÀÆ FUÁUÀ0Éà ªÀAiÀĸÁìV £ÁªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÈzÁÝ¥ÀåUÀ½AiÀÄ°è EgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £À£ÀUÉ FZÉUÉ DgÉÆÃUÀåzÀ ¹Üw ªÀÈzÁÝ¥ÀåzÀ zÀ±É¬ÄAzÀ QëÃtªÁUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ £À£Àß PÁ0Á£ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß C£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ F PɼÀV£À µÉqÀÆå°£À°è vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀ £À£Àß D¹Û ¥Á¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄÄAzÉ AiÀiÁªÀ «zsÀªÁzÀ vÀAmÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ GAmÁUÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ
- 86 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 zÉúÀzsÁqÀåð DgÉÆÃUÀå ¨sÁUÀå eÁÕ¥ÀPÀ §Ä¢Ý±ÀQÛ ZÉ£ÁßV EzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ fêÀAvÀªÁVgÀĪÁUÀ°Ã £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄUÀ¼À°è AiÀiÁgÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÉ £À£Àß D¹Û ¥Á¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃgÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ AiÉÆÃZÀ£É ªÀiÁr ºÁ° ªÀÈzÁÝ¥Àå°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ Dgï. C§âAiÀÄå gÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ.Dgï. «dAiÀÄgÁWÀªÀgÉrØ E§âgÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ªÉÆzÀ°£ÀAvÉAiÉÄà ¦æÃw ªÁ¸Àì®å UËgÀªÀUÀ½AzÀ £ÉÆÃqÀÄvÁÛ PÁ® PÁ®PÉÌ £ÀªÀÄä DgÉÆÃUÀå AiÉÆÃUÀPÉëêÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸ÀÄvÁÛ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß DgÉÊPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÁ £À£Àß ªÉÄîÌAqÀ E§âgÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÉà jÃw DgÉÊPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ £ÀªÀÄä AiÉÆÃUÀ PÉëêÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÆß £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀÎw ºÉÆA¢¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ ¨sÀgÀªÀ¸É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀA©PÉ £À£Àß E§âgÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼À°è £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV £ÀA©PÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ µÉqÀÆå°£À°è vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀ £À£Àß ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ Dgï. C§âAiÀÄågÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ.Dgï. «dAiÀÄ gÁWÀªÀgÉrØ E§âjUÀÆ £À£Àß £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÉÃgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ."
100. Furthermore, the Will expressly states that, in the event of his death before his wife, Ramaiah Reddy's two sons are instructed to take care of Chowdamma. It also includes provisions for her care, with clear direction for his sons to look after her. The recitals in the Will demonstrate that the plaintiff and her sister, as daughters of Ramaiah Reddy, were well provided for. It is stated that during the partition, three divisions were made, and properties were allocated to
- 87 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 both daughters, including the constructed of houses. This suggests that the Will was a natural one, making provisions for his wife and two daughters.
101. The evidence of PW.1 indicates that she received properties from her in-laws, and it appears that both the plaintiff and Papamma are leading comfortable life with their respective families. It is plausible that the testator, Ramaiah Reddy, intended to bequeath his share of the partitioned property to his two sons. The learned trial Court, after considering all these factors, concluded that, based on the Memorandum of Partition and the Wardi issued by Ramaiah Reddy, the record of rights had been updated to reflect separate ownership for him and his two sons. The trial Court rightly observed that, Defendant No. 5 failed to prove the Will (Ex.D5) dated 21.09.1989, purportedly executed by Chowdamma in her favor. Moreover, the Will dated 30.11.1986 (Ex.D276) was duly proved in accordance with the law. Therefore, Point No. 5 is answered in the negative.
- 88 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 Point Nos. 6 and 7:
102. Upon a comprehensive analysis of Points 1 to 5, we have arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing that the subject properties are joint family properties. Further, we have determined that the provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1990 Karnataka, and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 are inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
103. The learned trial Court has duly considered all relevant aspects and has correctly rejected the plaintiff's claim. The trial Court's findings are consistent with established legal principles and are substantiated by the facts of the case. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court warrant no interference from this Court.
104. Both the plaintiff and defendant no. 5 have failed to establish entitlement to any relief, let alone the relief sought in their respective pleadings. In
- 89 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 light of the foregoing discussion, the appeals filed by the plaintiff and defendant no. 5 stand dismissed, with no order as to costs.
105. Resultantly, we pass the following:
ORDER i. RFA Nos.1139/2009 and 1141/2009 are hereby dismissed.
ii. The Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.1646/1987 by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH No. 3) on 26th June 2009, is hereby upheld and affirmed.
iii. In view of the familial ties and the peculiarities of the matter, this Court, in its discretion, refrains from passing any order as to costs.
- 90 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5096-DB RFA No. 1139 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 1141 of 2009 iv. The records of the trial Court, along with a copy of this judgment, shall be returned to the trial Court.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SMJ/Sk/ct-vg