Bangalore District Court
Mahesh vs M Prasad on 4 April, 2026
KABC0A0000162020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL
BENGALURU, (CCH-73)
Present:
Sri. Sreepada N,
B.Com, LL.M.,
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 4th day of April 2026
O.S.No.25008/2020
Plaintiff:- Sri. Mahesh,
S/o Late Dr. N. Kashinath,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.2/11(3),
Nanjappa Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru-560 027.
[By Sri. Muniyappa -Adv.]
V/s
Defendants:- 1. M. Prasad,
S/o Maniappa,
(Husband of
Late Smt. Vijayakumari,
Aged about 68 years,
R/at No.362, I Block, 2nd Stage,
2 OS No.25008/2020
10th Main, 3rd Stage,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore-560 079.
2. Sri. Premkumar,
S/o Late Dr. N. Kashinath,
Aged about 72 years,
3. Smt. Jayarathna,
W/o Sri. Prem Kumar,
Aged about 65 years,
Defendants 2 & 3 are
Residing at
No.2829, 7th Main,
Kumaraswamy Layout,
2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 078.
4. Smt. Sujatha,
W/o Sri. Natesh.M,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.343, 4th Cross,
Bangiyappa Garden,
Lakshmi Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-560 027.
5. Smt. C.V. Kalal,
W/o Late Dr. N. Kashinath,
Aged about 69 years,
R/at No.399, 2nd Cross,
HBCS Colony,
Amarjyothi Layout,
Bangalore-560 071.
3 OS No.25008/2020
6. Smt. P. Kavitha,
Aged about 44 years,
D/o Sri. M. Prasad and
Late Vijayakumari,
7. Smt. Savitha,
Aged about 44 years,
D/o Sri. M. Prasad and
Late Vijayakumari,
8. Smt. Anitha,
Aged about 40 years,
D/o Sri. M. Prasad and
Late Vijayakumari,
9. Sri. Anand,
Aged about 40 years,
D/o Sri. M. Prasad and
Late Vijayakumari,
Defendants 6 to 9 are residing at
No.362, 1st Block, II Cross,
10th Main, 3rd Stage,
Basaweshwara Nagar,
Bangalore-560 079.
[By Sri. SMM Adv., for D.1,
Sri. RRD Adv., for D.2 & 3,
Sri.GSP Adv., for D.4,
Sri.R.Associates for D.6 to
D.9]
[D.5 - Absent]
4 OS No.25008/2020
Date of Institution of the suit 20.1.2020
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit
for declaration and possession, suit Suit for Probate
for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of
12.12.2021
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was
4.4.2026
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 06 02 14
LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for probate in respect of the Will dtd: 21.7.2014 jointly executed by Late Dr. N. Kasinath and Late Smt.Channaveeramma and to direct the 1st Defendant herein to act as Joint Executor along with the Plaintiff herein and to execute the Will dtd: 21.7.2014 as per the terms enumerated therein accordance with law and for other reliefs.
2. The case of the Plaintiff, sans details, is that the Plaintiff is beneficiary under the Last Will and 5 OS No.25008/2020 Testament dtd: 21.7.2014 jointly executed by Late Dr. N. Kasinath and Late Smt. Channaveeramma. Under the said Will the executors/testators have bequeathed certain properties in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendants herein. The said Dr. N. Kasinath expired on 10.5.2016 and Smt. Channaveeramma expired on 21.2.2017. The Plaintiff and 1st Defendant herein have been appointed as the joint executors of the Will dtd:
21.7.2014 jointly executed by Late Dr. N. Kasinath and Late Smt. Channaveeramma.
3. Further stated that the father of the Plaintiff Dr. N. Kasinath died at the age of 91 years. During his lifetime, he was serving as District Surgeon in the Government of Bombay from 1955 to 1980. During his lifetime Dr. N. Kasinath married one Puttamma daughter of Late Puttappa in the year 1944. The said Puttamma died in the year 1949 leaving behind her two children born to Dr. N. Kasinath i.e., Premkumar i.e., the 2nd Defendant and Smt. Vijayakumar to succeed to her estate. The father of the Plaintiff Dr. N. Kasinath had acquired property bearing 2/11, Nanjappa Road, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru, under 6 OS No.25008/2020 Sale Deed dtd: 1.3.1962 executed by Sri. T. Siddabasappa. There was partition in the family vide Partition Deed dtd: 15.7.1982. The said partition reveals the fact that Smt. Puttamma the mother of Sri. Premkumar was allotted a share now which is in possession and enjoyment of Sri. Premkumar. After the death of Puttamma, Dr. Kasinath married one Smt. Channaveeramma as his second wife and there are no issues born to her. Dr. Kasinath has executed Gift Deed dtd: 24.2.2010 gifting the property bearing Municipal No.2/11, Old Site No.3 of the then Muniswamy Garden, situated at Nanjappa Road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore, in favour of Smt. Channaveeramma. After the death of Channaveeramma, Dr. Kasinath again married Smt. Chandramathi Veerappa Kalal as his third wife and out of their wedlock, they have two children by name Smt. Sujatha i.e., the 4th Defendant and Sri. Mahesh i.e., the Plaintiff herein. The above said property was bifurcated under a Special Notice dtd: 4.7.2016, the BBMP has bifurcated the Schedule Property and allotted various numbers to the properties as detailed therein. Smt. Vijayakumar the wife of 1st Defendant died on 4.9.2017. During the lifetime of Dr. N. 7 OS No.25008/2020 Kasinath, he had purchased Hyundai Assent Motor Car bearing Registration No.KA-01-MD-2893. Smt. Channaveeramma was operating a Savings Bank Account with Syndicate Bank and she has deposited a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- in Fixed Deposit with Syndicate under FD Receipt dtd: 13.7.2016. Dr. N. Kasinath was holding a Savings Bank Account with Canara Bank in account No.1882, K.H.Road Branch, Bangalore. The parents of the Plaintiff Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma were residing with him and they were under the care and custody of Plaintiff and he took care of them and provided all facilities to them with love and affection and also performed the funeral rites and obsequies ceremony after the death of Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma. In view of the affection shown by the Plaintiff, both the testators have bequeathed certain properties in favour of Plaintiff and some properties to the Defendants which are detailed in the schedule and appointed the Plaintiff and 1 st Defendant as joint executors of the Will dtd:
21.7.2014. Inspite of Plaintiff requesting the 1 st Defendant to act as a joint executor of the Will, he failed to perform his part of the obligation casted 8 OS No.25008/2020 upon him under the said Will. Therefore, the Plaintiff approached this Court to decree the suit.
4. Pursuant to summons, the Defendant No.1 to 4, 6 to 9 entered appearance through their counsels and Defendant No.1, 4 have filed their separate written statements and the Defendant No.2 & 3 have filed their joint written statement. The Defendant No.6 to 9 have adopted the written statement of Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.5 remained absent.
5. The Defendant No.1 in his written statement specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. The suit filed by the Plaintiff is false and frivolous, hence the same may be liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Further admitted the relationship between the parties and contended Dr. Kasinath and his mother Channaveeramma have together residing in their house at Nanjappa Raod, Chanthinagar, Bangalore. The Plaintiff was staying separately and the Plaintiff 9 OS No.25008/2020 from the beginning adopted play boy attitude and never been responsible in taking care of the affairs of the house and never discharged his obligations as responsible son for Dr. Kasinath and Smt Channaveeramma. Furthermore, Dr. Kasinath on several occasion reprimanded the Plaintiff and advised him to behave as responsible person befitting to his status, however, he is continued to behave in irresponsible manner during the lifetime of their parents. He has categorically denied the existence of Will dtd: 21.7.2014 allegedly executed by Dr. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma and the said Will is a suspicious document, since Dr. Kasinath at the time of death at the age of 91 years who was suffering from several age related ailments including Vascular Dementia and he was suffering from short of memory due to hyper tension and other mental disorders and he was taking treatment for the same and he was not capable of understanding any words without the help of anyone. Further Smt. Channaveeramma died at the age of 77 years and she was also not capable of understanding and from the rational opinion on anything and she was depending on somebody to do all her routine 10 OS No.25008/2020 activities, such being the case the execution of the Will by Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma is highly improbable and suspicious. The 1st Defendant further contended that there is no medical certificate whatsoever has furnished to prove the mental capability of the testators of the said Will and the 1st Defendant strongly denies the existence of the Will which is created by the Plaintiff herein. Further contended that Smt. Vijayakumari the deceased wife of 1st Defendant and Sri. Premkumar have together filed the original suit in O.S.No.298/2017 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore (CCH-No.6) against Smt. Sujatha Natesh and N.K. Mahesh, 4th Defendant and Plaintiff herein for the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in respect Suit Schedule Property and the Plaintiff has put his appearance and filed written statement, the suit is pending for adjudication. Further contended that the alleged Will is an unregistered document, apart from that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding in the execution of the alleged Will, thus it is abundantly clear that the Testators of the said alleged Will never intend to bequeath the properties in favour of the Plaintiff. Further Plaintiff has not produced any iota 11 OS No.25008/2020 of documents to prove that, the Testators of the Will have executed the said document with their free will and volition, hence the plaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The legal heirs of Smt. P. Vijayakumari deceased wife of 1st Defendant arenot arrayed as parties to the above proceedings, hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and liable to dismissed. There is no cause of action for the suit and suffers many factual and legal infirmities, hence the same is liable to be dismissed with cost. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
6. The Defendant No.2 & 3 in their written statement specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma have died intestate. The falsely alleged, so called Last Will and Testament reportedly executed jointly on 21.7.2014 by the said two persons which is produced by the scheming Petitioner in the instant case, is collusive and fabricated. Moreover, it is prima-facie fatally defective, contains several blatant false, frivolous and fraudulent averments apparent on the face of 12 OS No.25008/2020 record and thus, it is absolutely not enforceable in law. Further taken up contention that the suit of the Plaintiff is not at all maintainable. The Plaintiff with his aid and assistance have created the Will. The most of the documents produced by the Plaintiff are concocted, fabricated and fraudulent in nature. So the Will is fabricated and fraudulent in nature. The Plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands, therefore, he is not at all entitled for any relief, leave alone the ones he has prayed for specifically in the instant petition. The Court fee paid by the Plaintiff is not proper. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the suit.
7. The Defendant No.4 also filed separate written statement and contended that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is totally false, baseless and liable to be dismissed. The Plaintiff in the Schedule Item No.4 to the plaint alleges that Dr. N. Kashinath and Smt. Channaveeramma have bequeathed to him under the alleged Will dtd: 21.7.2014 "all other apartment and rooms in the property bearing No.2/11, Nanjappa road, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru. Inspite of this, the Petitioner does not give details of the so called "all 13 OS No.25008/2020 other apartments and rooms. Late Smt. Vijaya Kumari during her lifetime along with her brother Sri. Prem Kumar i.e., the 2nd Defendant jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.2981/2017 against the Petitioner and this Defendant No.4 seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in the Suit Schedule Properties, which include not only the entire property bearing No.2/11, Nanjappa Road, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru, but also the deposit of Rs.80,00,000/-, Gold and Silver Articles as also the Hundai Accent Car. The Plaintiff inspite of his having knowledge of that suit and having entered appearance through counsel, has intentionally and willfully suppressed this material fact. In view of this also, the present suit has to be dismissed. The suit is totally bad for suppression of one other material fact viz, that Smt.Channaveeramma, during her lifetime, gifted one number of 2 BHK Apartment situated in the rear of the Ground Floor of the building constructed on the property bearing No.2/11 in favour of Smt. Vijaya Kumar W/o Sri. M. Prasad i.e., 1st Defendant and has executed a Gift Deed dtd: 15.12.2014 and also gifted one number of 3 BHK Apartment situated in the rear of the Ground Floor of the building construed 14 OS No.25008/2020 on the property bearing No.2/11 in favour of the Plaintiff and has executed Gift Deed dtd: 15.12.2014. However, he has not denied the relationship between the parties to the suit. Further also taken up contention that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Further taken up contention that the suit is bad for suppression of material facts, as the Plaintiff has not stated anything about the gift made by Channaveerama dtd: 15.12.2014. Further also taken up contention that the Plaintiff is the Defendant in O.S.No.2981/2017 has set up the present Will as a defense in that suit. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the present suit. Further taken up contention that when Civil Court of competent jurisdiction is seized of the matter relating the properties of the deceased Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma, a probate court before whom the proceedings are normally summary one, does not get jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present suit. Further also taken up contention that the deceased Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma are not in physically or mentally good condition so as to execute the alleged Will. Further contended that as on the date of execution of the alleged Will Dr. N. 15 OS No.25008/2020 Kashinath was seriously ill and he was not mentally capable of understanding what he was doing. Further contended that the Defendant No.4 was in close association with Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma until their death. When this is the position, at no point of time either Dr. N. Kashinath or Smt. Channaveeramma informed about the alleged Willl dtd: 21.7.2014 having been executed by them. Therefore, the alleged Will is created and fabricated one and the Plaintiff will not get any right over the Suit Properties. The Will propounded by the Petitioner being a fabricated and concocted one is clear from the fact that it contains false statements and there is no scribe to it. The alleged witnesses to the said Will are strangers to the Defendants and the family members of late Dr. N. Kashinath and late Smt. Channaveeramma. This Defendant denied the execution of Will by the testators, as Dr. N. Kashinath was suffering from age old ailments and he was also suffering from dimensia and other diseases. Smt. Channaveeramma was also very week not only physically but also mentally so as not been able to understand what she was doing. This Defendant deny the said Will not only relating to its 16 OS No.25008/2020 contents, execution and the witnesses thereto. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.
8. Based on the pleadings of the parties, this court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma have jointly executed the Will dtd:
21.7.2014?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, he and the Defendant No.1 have been nominated as Joint Executors under the Will dtd: 21.7.2014?
3. Whether the Defendant No.1 prove that, the suit of the Plaintiff is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties, as contended in Para No.21 of the written statement?
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as claimed in the suit?
5. What order or decree?
9. The Plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and examined one more witness as PW.2 and got 17 OS No.25008/2020 marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 documents. The Defendant No.1, 2 & 4 themselves got examined as DW.1 to DW.3 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9 documents and closed their side. The Handwriting Expert is examined as CW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2.
10. Heard both sides. Perused the written synopsis filed by the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1, 2, 6 to
9.
11. Perused the evidence and documents on record. On appreciation of the evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.3 : In the Negative.
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.5 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
12. Issue No.1 & 2:-
In order to avoid repetition of facts, these issues have been taken up together for consideration.18 OS No.25008/2020
13. Earlier the Plaintiff has filed P & S.C.No.25056/2018 against the Defendants seeking relief of issue of Probate in respect of Will dtd:
21.7.2014 jointly executed by Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma and to pass an order directing the Respondent No.1 to come as joint executor along with Plaintiff and to execute the Will dtd: 21.7.2014 as per the terms enumerated therein etc.
14. However, this Court as per order dtd:
7.12.2019 come to conclusion that the Will on basis of the which probate is claimed and the same is challenged the probate proceedings are to be treated as original suit. Accordingly, this Court directed to convert this petition to suit and objection filed by the Respondents as written statement. In view of the above, earlier P & SC proceedings has been converted into suit.
15. As aforesaid, the Plaintiffs have specifically claimed in this suit that the probate may be issued in respect of the Will dtd: 21.7.2014 jointly executed by 19 OS No.25008/2020 Dr. N. Kasinath and his wife Smt. Channaveeramma during their lifetime bequeathing the Suit Schedule Property in favour of Plaintiffs and Defendants. According to the said Will, the Defendant No.1 has been appointed as joint executor along with the Plaintiff and to execute the Will dtd: 21.7.2014.
16. On the other hand, the Defendants especially the Defendant No.1 has denied about the valid execution of the Will by Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma. Further taken up contention that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding in the execution of the said Will. As the testators have never intended to bequeath the properties in favour of the Plaintiffs and the alleged documents are not free from doubts. Therefore, this suit is liable to be dismissed.
17. The Defendant No.1, 6 to 9 have further specifically contended in their written statement and the Defendant No.1 in his oral evidence that when the deceased wife of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 have filed suit in O.S.No.2981/2017 against the Plaintiff for the relief of partition and separate 20 OS No.25008/2020 possession and after coming to know about the said suit the Plaintiff has set up the alleged Will with a sole intention to deprive their right in the said suit has initiated probate proceedings. Further taken up contention that the alleged Will is an unregistered document. Apart from that there are suspicious circumstances in the execution of the said Will and it is boundently clear that the testator of the alleged Will never intended to bequeath the properties in favour of the Plaintiff. Further also taken up contention that the father of the Plaintiff was 91 years at the time of alleged Will and there is no medical records produced to show that deceased Dr. N. Kashinath and his wife Channaveeramma were hail and health and were capable to execute the Will. Therefore, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
18. The Defendant No.2 & 3 in their written statement have contended that Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma have died intestate. Further taken up contention that the suit of the Plaintiff is not at all maintainable. The Plaintiff with his aid and assistance have created the Will. The most of the 21 OS No.25008/2020 documents produced by the Plaintiff are concocted, fabricated and fraudulent in nature. So the Will is fabricated and fraudulent in nature. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the suit.
19. The Defendant No.4 also filed separate written statement and contended that the suit is not at all maintainable. However, he denied the relationship between the parties to the suit. Further also taken up contention that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. Further taken up contention that the suit is bad for suppression of material facts, as the Plaintiff has not stated anything about the gift made by Channaveerama dtd: 15.12.2014. Further also taken up contention that the Plaintiff is the Defendant in O.S.No.2981/2017 has set up the present Will as a defense in that suit. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the present suit. Further taken up contention that when Civil Court of competent jurisdiction is seized of the matter relating the properties of the deceased Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma, a probate court before whom the proceedings are normally summary one, does not get 22 OS No.25008/2020 jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present suit. Further also taken up contention that the deceased Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma are not in physically or mentally good condition so as to execute the alleged Will. Further contended that as on the date of execution of the alleged Will Dr. N. Kashinath was seriously ill and he was not mentally capable of understanding what he was doing. Further contended that the Defendant No.4 was in close association with Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma until their death. When this is the position, at no point of time either Dr. N. Kashinath or Smt. Channaveeramma informed about the alleged Willl dtd: 21.7.2014 having been executed by them. Therefore, the alleged Will is created and fabricated one and the Plaintiff will not get any right over the Suit Properties. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.
20. The Plaintiff in order to prove the averments of plaint got himself examined as PW.1 and examined one attesting witness of the Will as PW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. Even the Plaintiff examined Handwriting Expert as 23 OS No.25008/2020 CW.1 and got marked document through him as per Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2.
21. Let me go through the documentary evidence placed by the Plaintiff in support of his case. Ex.P.1 is the unregistered Will dtd: 21.7.2014 alleged to be executed Dr. N. Kashinath and his second wife Channaveeramma in respect of their properties. Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.3 are the Death Certificates of Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma. Ex.P.4 is the Sale Deed dtd: 1.3.1962 shows that Dr. N. Kashinath has purchased Site No.3 by way of registered Sale Deed. Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of Partition Deed dtd: 15.7.1982. Ex.P.6 is the Gift Deed dtd: 24.2.2010. Ex.P.7 is the Special Notice issued by the BBMP U/Sec.147 of KMC Act. Ex.P.8 is the Bank Passbook of Channaveeramma. Ex.P.9 is the Bank Passbook of Dr. N. Kashinath. Ex.P.10 is the Fixed Deposit Receipt standing in the name of Channaveeramma. Ex.P.11 & Ex.P.12 are the Declarations given by the husband of Defendant No.1 & Defendant No.4 in connection with the Gift Deeds executed by Channaveeramma.
24 OS No.25008/202022. Out of the Defendants, the Defendant No.1 examined as DW.1, Defendant No.2 examined as DW.2 and Defendant No.4 examined as DW.3 and they got marked the documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 are the certified copies of Gift Deeds executed by Channaveeramma has been marked by way of confrontation during the course of cross- examination. Ex.D.4 is the Plaint in O.S.No.2981/2017 filed by the wife of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 against the Defendant No.4 and the Plaintiff. Ex.D.5 is the Discharge Summary of deceased Kashinath. Ex.D.6 is the digital copy of Gift Deed executed by Channaveeramma in favour of Defendant No.4. Ex.D.7 is the Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.D.8 is the Tax Paid Receipt. Ex.D.9 is the Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act in connection digital copies of documents.
23. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff during the course of arguments and as well as in his written arguments specifically contended that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties to the suit. The Plaintiff has earlier filed P & SC seeking probate with respect to the properties 25 OS No.25008/2020 mentioned in Item No.1 to 8 of the Will. The Plaintiff has found the said Will while shifted his house in the year 2016 and immediately prayed the Defendant No.1 to act as executor, but he refused to joint with him in P & SC to execute the Will of Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma. Further argued that though the Defendant No.2 & 3 have jointly filed the written statement and denied the execution of Will by Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma, but the Defendant No.2/DW.2 who is the eldest son of Late Kashinath had admitted that Will dtd: 21.7.2014 was executed by his father Dr. Kashinath and his step mother Channaveeramma. Though the Defendant No.3 adopted the written statement of Defendant No.2 has not chosen to lead any evidence. The Plaintiff in order to prove the valid execution of the Will by the testator has examined PW.2. even the Plaintiff got appointed the Handwriting Expert to examine the signature of executrix in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 which are the Will and Gift Deeds. The Handwriting Expert has clearly opined that the disputed signatures of the testator i.e., Dr. Kashinath and Channaveeramma are similar to the admitted signatures to that are found in Ex.P.6 Gift Deed. When the Expert has 26 OS No.25008/2020 clearly opined that the signatures of the testator of Ex.P.1 found in Ex.P.1 are matching with Ex.P.6 signatures, the same should be accepted by this Court. There is no materials placed by the Defendants to show that deceased Kashinath was not mentally capable to execute Will at the relevant point of time. DW.2 has clearly admitted that his father Kashinath and step mother Channaveeramma have executed Will dtd: 21.7.2014. Even DW.3 also admitted in her cross-examination that her father and mother have resided along with the Plaintiff at the time death of her father. The wife of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.4 have executed declarations as per Ex.P.11 & Ex.P.12 declaring that they have no claims towards the property and also received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- each at the time of declaration. Further execution of declaration and accepting the Gift Deed, later the deceased wife of Defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.2981/2017 seeking partition. Further argued that the Plaintiff in support of his case has produced sufficient documentary evidence. The Plaintiff by examining one of the attesting witness has proved the valid execution of the Will by Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma as per 27 OS No.25008/2020 Ex.P.1. Even PW.2 has identified the signatures of testators and as well as himself in Ex.P.1. According to Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 59 of Indian Succession Act the Plaintiff has proved his case, as the Plaintiff who is the propounder of the Will by placing sufficient corroborative evidence and substantial evidence proved the valid execution of the Will by the testator. Therefore, question of suspicious circumstances does not arise and the due execution of the Will has been proved. Accordingly, he prayed to decree the suit.
24. Even though the Defendant No.2 strongly denied the averments of plaint and as well as execution of Will by both Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma in the written statement, but DW.2 admitted the case of the Plaintiff in his oral evidence. Even the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.2 is also supporting the case of the Plaintiffs.
25. It is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 is that there is no medical certificate whatsoever to prove the mental capacity of the testator of the Will and at the time of death the 28 OS No.25008/2020 age of Kashinath was 91 years and Chennaveeramma was 77 years. After come to know about the suit filed by the Defendant No.1 for partition and after come to know about the properties left by Kashinath and Channaveeramma has set up the alleged Will with sole intention to deprive the right of the Defendants in the Schedule Properties. Further he referred the cross-examination of PW.1 & PW.2 and as well as cross of CW.1.
26. Further argued that the PW.2 is the interested witness and friend of PW.1. Even the another attesting witness has not been examined by the Plaintiff. CW.1 has clearly stated in the cross- examination that he cannot say that signatures found on disputed documents are obtained under coercion, undue influence or by threat. Further he sated that reliability of the report is based upon the admitted signatures provided to him. Even he stated that he has not analyzed the type of instruments used for signing disputed and admitted documents. When the onus is upon the Plaintiff to prove the Will by removing the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, but he has not 29 OS No.25008/2020 at all done so, as the propounder has not proved the Will as required under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. That apart, the Ex.P.1 Will was not at all registered document and even name of the scribe also not at all mentioned in the Will. The major portions of properties were given to the Plaintiff in the said Will for that there is no explanation from the side of the Plaintiff. These are the suspicious circumstances surrounding about the valid execution of the Will by the Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma.
27. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the following decisions:
1) H. Venkatachala Iyenger V/s B.N. Thimmajamma and others in Civil Appeal No.18 of 1955.
2) Bharpur Singh & Others V/s Shamsher Singh in Civil Appeal No.7250 of 2008.
3) Chinu Rani Ghosh V/s Subhash Gosh and Others in Spl.(c) No.23721 of 2022.
4) Karri Nookaraju V/s Putra Venkata Rao and Others in AIR 1974 Andhra Pradesh 13.30 OS No.25008/2020
5) Abdul Wahab & Ors., V/s Rahamathunnissa Since Deceased by LRs., in R.S.A. No.1321/2007 (DEC/INJ).
28. Even the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.4 also in his arguments submitted that Ex.P.1 has been created by the Plaintiff in order to deprive the right of the Defendants over the Suit Schedule Property. After the Plaintiff came to know about the filing of this suit by the wife of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 only created Ex.P.1. there is no proper reasons have been assigned in the Ex.P.1 for granting larger extent of the properties to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the suit.
29. At this stage itself it is necessary to refer some of the rulings of the Honb'le Apex Court regarding proof of Will by the propounder of the Will. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6076/2009 (Shivajumar & others V/s Sharanabasappa and Ors), while referring to several judgments of the Apex Court as to the proof of Will, was pleaded to summarize the principles 31 OS No.25008/2020 governing the adjudicatory process concerning proof of a Will as follows:-
"1. Ordinarily, a Will has to be proved like any other document; the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind. Alike the principles governing the proof of other documents, in the case of Will too, the proof with mathematical accuracy is not to be insisted upon.
2. Since as per Section 63 of the Succession Act, a Will is required to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence.
3. The unique feature of a Will is that it speaks from the death of the testator and, therefore, the maker thereof is not available for deposing about the circumstances in which the same was executed. This introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is the last Will of the testator. The initial onus, naturally, lies on the propounder but the same can be taken to have been primarily discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of a Will.
4. The case in which the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious 32 OS No.25008/2020 circumstances stands on a different footing. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the onus heavier on the propounder and, therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the document give rise to suspicion, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last Will of the testator.
5. If a person challenging the Will alleges fabrication or alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etcetera in regard to the execution of the Will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will may give rise to the doubt or as to whether the Will had indeed been executed by the testator and/or as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. In such eventuality, it is again a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter.
6. A circumstance is "suspicious"
when it is not normal or is 'not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person'. As put by this Court, the suspicious features must be 'real, germane and valid' and not merely the 'fantasy of the doubting mind.'
7. As to whether any particular feature or a set of features qualify as 33 OS No.25008/2020 "suspicious" would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A shaky or doubtful signature; a feeble or uncertain mind of the testator; an unfair disposition of property; an unjust exclusion of the legal heirs and particularly the dependants; an active or leading part in making of the Will by the beneficiary thereunder etcetera are some of the circumstances which may give rise to suspicion. The circumstances above-noted are only illustrative and by no means exhaustive because there could be any circumstance or set of circumstances which may give rise to legitimate suspicion about the execution of the Will. On the other hand, any of the circumstance qualifying as being suspicious could be legitimately explained by the propounder. However, such suspicion or suspicions cannot be removed by mere proof of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature coupled with the proof of attestation.
8. The test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience comes into operation when a document propounded as the Will of the testator is surrounded by suspicious circumstance/s. While applying such test, the Court would address itself to the solemn questions as to whether the testator had signed the Will while being aware of its contents and after understanding the nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will?
34 OS No.25008/20209. In the ultimate analysis, where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, it is a matter essentially of the judicial conscience of the Court and the party which sets up the Will has to offer cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will."
30. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in a ruling reported in (2017 (1) SCC 257) (Ramesh Varma V/s Lajesh Saksena) was pleased to observe as follows:-
"The propounder has to show that Will was signed by testator and that the testator was in sound and disposing state of mind at the relevant time that the testator had understood the nature and effect of disposition and put his signature to document on his own free will such document shall not be used as evidence unless one of attesting witness is called to prove execution this mandate of law does not change even if opposite party does not specifically deny execution of Will."
31. Keeping in view the broad principles laid down by the Honb'le Apex Court, let me appreciate the evidence of the parties to the suit with exhibits.
35 OS No.25008/202032. In this suit, the Plaintiff has specifically contended that Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma have jointly executed the Will dtd:
21.7.2014 and himself and Defendant No.1 have been nominated as joint executors of the Will. The Defendant No.1 is not ready to act as joint executor of the Will along with Plaintiff. Therefore, the probate in respect of Ex.P.1 may be issued and direct the Defendant No.1 to act as joint executors to execute the Will dtd: 21.7.2014.
33. Admittedly, the Plaintiff has placed his oral evidence and as well as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 in support of his evidence. In his oral evidence he has reiterated the contents of plaint averments. During the course of cross-examination made by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1, 6 to 9 he clearly stated that Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma died issueless. Further clearly denied that his father was suffering from Alzheimer disease, but admitted that after 2015 his father was frequently visiting to the hospital relating with his diseases. Even he admitted that his father admitted in the Hospital, but he was not sure that he was admitted in the said Hospital on 36 OS No.25008/2020 31.7.2015 and discharged on 6.8.2015. Further he clearly stated in the cross-examination that he came to know about writing of Will by his father, when he was shifting in his house that may be in the month of May or June 2016. The draftsmen of Ex.P.1 has not affixed his signature on Ex.P.1 Will. Further stated that there is no mentioned about Gift Deed dtd:
15.12.2014 in Ex.P.1. Further admitted that Doctor/Physician has neither attested the certificate to Ex.P.1 Will nor has affixed signature on Ex.P.1 Will, to show that the soundness of the mind of his father Dr. Kashinath.
34. Admittedly, on careful perusal of the above cross-examination it is clear that no worth materials have been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to show that the Ex.P.1 has been came under the suspicious circumstances. On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 has not at all placed sufficient materials to show that Ex.P.1 has been come under the suspicious circumstances. The Plaintiff has placed sufficient materials i.e., the subsequent documents executed by the testators i.e., Gift Deeds, so Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.37 OS No.25008/2020
35. It is an admitted fact that though the Defendant No.2 & 3 have jointly filed written statement and denied the case of the Plaintiff, but the Defendant No.2 in his oral evidence has clearly supported the case of the Plaintiff. Moreover, he is the elder son of Late Dr. N. Kasinath and he has admitted about the execution of the Will dtd:
21.7.2014 by his late father Dr. N. Kasinath and his step mother Channaveeramma. Even though the Defendant No.3 jointly filed written statement along with the Defendant No.2, but she did not led her evidence and contested the case. Further the Defendant No.2 has denied the Will, but not placed sufficient materials to show that the Will has been created by the Plaintiff. Admittedly, the third wife of Dr. N. Kasinath i.e., the Defendant No.5 placed ex-
parte.
36. Is pertinent to note here that the Plaintiff in order to prove the valid execution of the Will by Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma has examined PW.2 who is the attesting witness to the Will and he is the family friend of Plaintiff's father from last 15 38 OS No.25008/2020 years and there is no materials forthcoming from the side of the Defendants to show that his evidence cannot be believable. On the other hand, his evidence is duly corroborating the case of the Plaintiff. As aforesaid he has clearly identified the signatures of testators and himself in Ex.P.1.
37. Further as discussed above, CW.1 who is the Handwriting Expert has submitted his report and he has been provided with Ex.P.1 Will and Ex.P.6 Gift Deed wherein the admitted signature of Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma were found. The Expert after verifying the signatures of the testators of the Will on Ex.P.1 with their admitted signatures found on Ex.P.6 come to conclusion that the signatures of testators found on Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.6 are one and the same. Though the Learned Counsel for the Defendants cross-examined CW.1 at length, but nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth.
38. In this case, the Defendant No.1, 6 to 9 very much contended in the written statement that the testators were aged 98 and 76 years at the time of their death and they were not in sound state of mind 39 OS No.25008/2020 and no medical records have been produced to show that at the time of execution of the Will they were hail and healthy. Admittedly, as argued by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, the Defendants have produced Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 Gift Deeds executed by the testators that too registered before the Sub- Registrar Office on1 5.12.2014 i.e., after the execution of the Will by the testators on 21.7.2014. Even though the Defendants have produced Ex.D.5 discharge summary of Dr. N. Kasinath dtd: 6.8.2015, but on perusal of the same there was no serious issue found in this discharge summary. Therefore, Ex.D.5 discloses that Dr. N. Kasinath was hale and health and conscious in the year 2015 as per Ex.D.5.
39. It is the another contention of the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1, 6 to 9 is that the wife of Defendant No.1 & Defendant No.2 have filed suit in the year 2017 to counter blast the same by creating Will filed the P & S.C on 3.9.2018. Admittedly, according to the Plaintiff, he came to know about the Will in the year 2016 and then he used to request the Defendant No.1 to jointly execute the Will, but he refused to do so and instead filed the 40 OS No.25008/2020 suit for partition in the year 2017. Thereafter the Plaintiff filed written statement in O.S.No.2981/2017 on 14.8.2017 and in the written statement he has stated about Ex.P.1 Will, thereafter he filed the suit. Anyhow, the prima-facie materials discloses that the Plaintiff is able to prove that deceased Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma have validly executed the Will as per Ex.P.1.
40. Further it is the another contention of the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1, 6 to 9 is that there is no recitals in the Gift Deeds about the execution of the Will and if at all the testators have really executed the Will what was the necessity for them to execute Gift Deeds after 05 months from the date of alleged Will. Admittedly, some of the left out properties are gifted and more particularly the Defendants have accepted the Gift Deeds without any claim and also executed declaration as per Ex.P.11 & Ex.P.12. Moreover, the Defendants having accepted the property through Gift Deeds and being in possession of the same and then they filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.2981/2017. Further it is the intention of the testators not to disclose the facts of 41 OS No.25008/2020 the Will to anybody and the facts of the Will should be aware only after their death. Therefore, this Court can presume that there was no necessity for the testators to disclose about the Willed out properties or Ex.P.1 Will in Gift Deeds. The Will is typically discloses and comes into effect only after the death of testators prior to that its contents can remain confidential. Hence, there is no weightage in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1, 6 to 9. Further it is the another contention of the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1, 4, 6 to 9 is that in the Will it is not mentioned that who has prepared the Will. The another witness to the Will was not at all examined. Further also taken up contention that the Will was not at all registered and not at all been proved according to Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further also taken up contention that PW.2 is the interested witness etc. Further also taken up contention that more properties have been given to the Plaintiff in Ex.P.1, than to others and in this regard, no specific reasons has been mentioned in the Will. The Plaintiff was not at all taking care of the testators during their lifetime.
42 OS No.25008/2020Therefore, the Plaintiff in order to grab the major properties of the testators has created Ex.P.1 Will etc.
41. Admittedly, DW.2 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the Plaintiff was taking care of Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma and was residing along with them during their last days etc. Further the Plaintiff does not know who has prepared the Will, because only after the death of Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma, he came to know about the Ex.P.1 Will. According to Plaintiff, another attesting witness is not in a position to attend the Court as he had been undergone heart surgery and he was not able to move, therefore, question of examining another witness does not arise. Further on careful perusal of the evidence of PW.2 it is clear that his evidence cannot be said as worth-full, there is no worth materials elicited from his mouth to show that he is an interested witness in this suit. On the other hand, as discussed supra nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth to disprove his evidence. On the other hand, he is the natural witness and gave evidence. Merely because he is the friend of the Plaintiff is not a ground to say 43 OS No.25008/2020 that in order to help the Plaintiff he has falsely deposed before the Court. On the other hand, he frankly stated before the Court that he does not know the contents of the Will, but the Will has been executed by Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma in their house at Shanthinagar, at the time of execution of the Will himself both testators and the tenant were present.
42. Though the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1, 4, 6 to 9 disputed the evidence of CW.1 Handwriting Expert, but in order to show that he is an interested witness nothing has been placed before the Court. On the other hand, the Handwriting Expert has clearly deposed before the Court that the signatures of Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma found in Ex.P.1 Will is duly tallying with their admitted signatures found in Ex.P.6. Even this Court also compared the signatures of testators on Ex.P.1 with Ex.P.6 and found that there is no changes in the said signatures of the testators found in Ex.P.1 Will with the Ex.P.6. Merely, there was some minor variation in the signatures are not at all sufficient to come to conclusion that Ex.P.1 44 OS No.25008/2020 Will has been created by the Plaintiff to grab the Suit Schedule Properties. More importantly, the Defendant No.2 who is the elder son of Dr. N. Kasinath has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that Will Ex.P.1 has been executed Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma. Further also admitted that the Plaintiff was residing with his parents and taking care of their welfare. Weakly once he was also visited his parents. Further he clearly admitted that his father was hale and healthy prior to execution of the Will. At the time of death of his father he was having age related issues. So, this admission of DW.2 is also clearly goes to show that the Dr. N. Kasinath and Smt. Channaveeramma have validly executed Will as per Ex.P.1 and prior to execution of the Will both testators were hale and healthy and with their sound disposing state of mind only they have executed the Will. Therefore, there is no suspicious circumstances surrounding about the valid execution of the Will by the testators.
43. In view of the discussions made above it is clear that what are the decisions which relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1, 6 to 45 OS No.25008/2020 9 are not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case, as there is no suspicious circumstances surrounding about the valid execution of the Will by the testators in this case. Even the Plaintiff by examining one of the attesting witness of the Will proved the valid execution of the Will by the testators.
44. Further as argued by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.2, the registration of the Will is also not at all mandatory. In the instant case, on careful closure scrutiny of the Ex.P.1 Will and the subsequent proceedings including the detailed forensic report and as well as evidence of CW.1 and also entire evidence of Defendant No.2 and facts and circumstances of the case, that the execution of the Will by the testators has been proved the Plaintiff and there is no suspicious circumstances surrounding on the execution of the Will by the testators. Hence, this Court is on the opinion that the Plaintiff is able to prove that Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma have jointly executed Will dtd:
21.7.2014 and in the said Will the Plaintiff and 46 OS No.25008/2020 Defendant No.1 have been nominated as joint executors under the Ex.P.1 Will.
45. The Defendant No.1 also taken up contention in the written statement that the suit of the Plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the legal heirs of the deceased Vijaya Kumari are not arrayed as parties to the proceedings. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and same is liable to be dismissed. Admittedly, Late Vijaya Kumari who is the wife of Defendant No.1 reported to be dead on 4.9.2017 and her legal heirs i.e., the Defendant No.1, Defendant No.6 to 9 were already brought on record by the Plaintiff by filing IA.No.1/2022 dtd:
7.11.2022. Even the amended plaint was also filed on 4.3.2023. When already the LRs of Late Vijaya Kumari were brought on record, question of dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of parties to the proceedings does not arise.
Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 & 2 in the Affirmative and Issue No.3 in the Negative.
47 OS No.25008/202046. Issue No.4:-
In view of the detailed discussion and findings given by this Court on the foregoing issues, it is clear that the Plaintiff is able to prove that Late Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma have jointly executed Will dtd: 21.7.2014 in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties and the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 have been appointed as executors of the said Will. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled for probate.
47. In so far as scope of probate proceedings is concerned, it is appropriate to refer some of the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court which are as follows:
48. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Birla V/s Rajendra Singh Lodha, reported in (2008) 4 SCC
300), wherein it is held that, "The jurisdiction of the Probate Court is limited being confined only to consider the genuineness of the Will. A question of title arising under the Act cannot be gone into the probate proceedings, construction of a Will relating to the right, title and interest of 48 OS No.25008/2020 any other person is beyond the domain of the Probate Court.
49. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon V/s Hardyal Singh Dhillon, reported in 2007 (11) SCC 357, wherein it is observed that, "The Probate Court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself".
50 As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basati Devi V/s Raviprakash Ram Prasad, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 267, wherein it is held that, "The Probate Court in disputably exercises a limited jurisdiction and it is not concerned with the question of title.
Further the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, "The Judgment rendered in a Probate proceedings is a Judgment in Rem. But its application is limited. A Judgment rendered in a Probate proceedings would not be determinative of the question of title".
49 OS No.25008/2020The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the case on hand.
51. As aforesaid, the Plaintiff has not only produced the Ex.P.1 Will executed by deceased Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma at Ex.P.1, but also examined one of the attesting witness as PW.2 to the Will, Further also got appointed a Handwriting Expert to prove the signatures of testators on the Will and he has also clearly opined that the signatures found on the Will were of the testators. The executors of the Will were neither the minor, nor the person of unsound mind, nor he has been disqualified in any other law as required under Section 223 of Indian Succession Act 1975.
52. Proceedings for grant of Probate is summary in nature, and even if the evidence is lead, the finding given therein would not operate as resjudicata and the scope of enquiry is very much limited, and the disputed question of status of the parties cannot be gone into in the application for grant of Probate. It categorically provides that no decision under Part-IX upon any question of right 50 OS No.25008/2020 between the parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same questions in any suit, or any other proceedings between the same parties.
53. It is an admitted fact that already wife of the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 have already filed O.S.No.2981/2017 against the Defendant No.4 and the Plaintiff for the relief of partition and separate possession of their share in respect of Suit Schedule Properties. Therefore, this Court cannot say anything about the right of the parties to the proceedings in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties. Accordingly, on careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the parties to the suit, it is clear that the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 being the joint executors of the Ex.P.1 Will executed by Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma are entitled for grant of probate in order to administer the assets of the deceased Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma as per Ex.P.1 Will.
54. Under the above circumstances, it is just, proper and necessary to grant probate as prayed for and both the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 are 51 OS No.25008/2020 directed to act as joint executors as per the said Will. Hence, I answer this Issue in the Affirmative.
55. Issue No.5:-
In view of the findings on the above issues, the suit of the Plaintiff deserves to be decreed without cost. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby decreed.
Acting U/Sec. 264 R/W Sec. 222 of Indian Succession Act, Probate of Will executed by Late Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma dtd.21.7.2014, is jointly granted in favour of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 who are named as joint executors in the said Will, enabling them to administer the estate left by deceased Dr. N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma, as per the contents of their Will dtd. 21.7.2014
- Ex.P1, after collecting necessary Court Fee/Stamp duty.52 OS No.25008/2020
Office is directed to annex the true copy of the Will dtd. 21.7.2014 -
Ex.P1, along with the Probate, granted to the Plaintiff.
As per Sec. 294 of Indian Succession Act R/W Rule 18 of the Rules governing Probate and Succession Matters, 1966, the Original Will dtd. 21.7.2014 - Ex.P.1 is directed to be kept in the safe custody by following procedure enumerated in Rule 18 of the Rules governing Probate and Succession Matters, 1966.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictation given to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, after correction, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of April 2026).
Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA NARAYANAPPA SRIPAD SRIPAD Date: 2026.04.07 17:29:14 +0530 [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73). 53 OS No.25008/2020 SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
Properties allotted to the share of the Plaintiff Sri. Mahesh under the Will dated: 21.7.2014:
Item No.1 One Room with attached toilet in the Suit Floor together with an undivided share of 50 square feet in the lands in the Property bearing No.2/11, Nanjappa Road, Muniswamy Garden, Shantinagar, Bengaluru-560 027.
Item No.2 One BHK in the Suit Floor of the Property bearing No.2/11, Nanjappa Road, Muniswamy Garden, Shantinagar, Bengaluru-560 027.
Item No.3 One 3 BHK in front of the first floor and 2 BHK in the rear of the first floor of the building bearing No.2/11, Nanjappa Road, Muniswamy Garden, Shantinagar, Bengaluru-560 027, together with the rents received therefrom.
Item No.4 All other Apartment and Rooms in the building together with remaining undivided share in the lands in the property bearing No.2/11, Nanjappa Road, Muniswamy Garden, Shantinagar, Bengaluru-560 027.
Item No.5 One paid gold bangles with studded stones, one row gold chain with a Dollar and Gold belt described as item 54 OS No.25008/2020 Nos.4 to 6 in the Second Schedule to the Will dated: 21.7.2014.
Item No.6 The entire amount in the S.B. Account No.04572010019020 standing in the name of late Smt.Channaveeramma with Syndicate Bank, Shanthinagar Branch, Bangalore and S.B. Account No.1882 standing in the name of Dr. N. Kasinath with Canara Bank, K.H. Road, Bangalore.
Item No.7 Hyundai Assent Motor Car bearing Registration No.KA- 01-MD-2893.
Item No.8 Fixed Deposit amount of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees eighty lakhs only) with Syndicate Bank, Shanthinagar Branch, Bangalore, along with interest accrued thereon in the FD Sl.No. SBE 525186, A/c No.04574070000995/2 dated:
13.7.2016.
Properties allotted to the share of the 3 rd Respondent, Smt. Jayarathna wife of Prem Kumar under the Will dated: 21.7.2014:
One Gold necklace described as Item No.1 in the Second Schedule of the Will dated: 21.7.2014.
Properties allotted to the share of the 4th Respondent, Smt. Sujatha, wife of Sri. Natesh M, under the Will dated: 21.7.2014:55 OS No.25008/2020
Two pairs (4 Nos.) of Gold Bangles described as Item No.3 in the Second Schedule to the Will dated: 21.7.2014.
Properties allotted to the share of the 2nd Respondent, Sri. Prem Kumar under the Will dated: 21.7.2014:
Item No.1 One Room with attached toilet in the 3 rd Floor with a right to park one motor vehicle in the stilt floor along wit 50 square feet of undivided share in the land in Property No.2/11, Nanjappa Road, Muniswamy Garden, Shantinagar, Bengaluru-560 027.
Item No.2 One Gold Karadige described as Item No.7 in the Second Schedule to the Will dated: 21.7.2014.
Properties allotted to the share of Late Smt. Vijayakumari, under the Will dated: 21.7.2014 - now being succeeded by her legal heirs, i.e., her husband Sri. M. Prasad & her children:
Item No.1 One 2 BHK Apartment in the rear portion of ground floor of first schedule property along with the right to park one car in the stilt floor and 100 square feet of undivided share in the property bearing No.2/11, Nanjappa Road, Muniswamy Garden, Shantinagar, Bengaluru-560 027.56 OS No.25008/2020
Item No.2 Two pairs (4 Nos.) of Gold bangles descried as Item No.2 in the Second Schedule to the Will dated: 21.7.2014.
Properties allotted to the share of the 5th Respondent, Smt. C.V. Kalal under the Will dated: 21.7.2014:
One 3 BHK Apartment situated in the front portion of ground floor of the property bearing No.2/11, Nanjappa Road, Muniswamy Garden, Shantinagar, Bengaluru-560 027.
ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : Mahesh. PW.2 : R. Avinash.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Will dtd: 21.7.2014 executed N. Kashinath and Channaveeramma.
Ex.P.2 : Death Certificate of Dr. N. Kashinath.
Ex.P.3 : Death Certificate of Channaveeramma.
Ex.P.4 : Sale Deed dtd: 1.3.1962.
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of Partition Deed dtd:
15.7.1982.
Ex.P.6 : Registered Gift Deed dtd: 24.2.2010.
57 OS No.25008/2020Ex.P.7 : Special Notice issued by the BBMP U/Sec.147 of KMC Act.
Ex.P.8 : Bank Passbook of Channaveeramma.
Ex.P.9 : Bank Passbook of Dr. N. Kashinath.
Ex.P.10 : Fixed Deposit Receipt standing in the name of Channaveeramma.
Ex.P.11 : Declaration given by Defendant No.1.
Ex.P.12 : Declaration given by Defendant No.4.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : Mr. Prasad. DW.2 : Premkumar. DW.3 : Sujatha Natesh.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of Gift Deed dtd:
15.12.2014 executed by Mrs. Channaveeramma in favour of Vijayakumari.P. Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of Gift Deed dtd:
15.12.2014 executed by Mrs.Channaveeramma in favour of Mr. K.Mahesh.
Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of Gift Deed dtd:15.12.2014 executed by Mrs. Channaveeramma in 58 OS No.25008/2020 favour of Mrs. Sujatha Natesh.
Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of plaint in
O.S.No.2981/2017.
Ex.D.5 : Discharge summary issued by Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital.
Ex.D.6 : Digital copy of Gift Deed dtd: 15.12.2014.
Ex.D.7 : Digital copy of Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.D.8 : Digital copy of Tax Paid Receipt.
Ex.D.9 : Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA NARAYANAPPA SRIPAD SRIPAD Date: 2026.04.07 17:29:00 +0530 [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).