Sri B Y Narasimha Prasad vs Smt H S Saraswathi on 29 June, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 2]
Karnataka High Court

Sri B Y Narasimha Prasad vs Smt H S Saraswathi on 29 June, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2010 (4) AIR KAR R 87, AIR 2011 (NOC) (SUPP.) 87 (KAR.)

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, N.Ananda

   

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS *1':-12: 29"! DAY OF JUNE, 203,Q_"'  

PRESENT

 

THE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'iCE I) V SH'YLi€N&D'RA.; 

AND
THE HONTSLE MR.Jz}sfgfi*e:E N hmmepgz 
  

Bggvszgsglg
Sri.B.Y.Narasirnha Prasad, H  _ x
8/0 Late Sri.S.R.Sha;ii:arn&:*%iy£i11§1  ' 
Aged about 407 Yeaf=")%;V.t\4\~  =i   _ 

At present residing? ft'-.tt5A:N_(L§.    " 't ' ~

Coconut Avenué Rcaki.  

Malleswaram, "    _  '  

Bangalore »¢'580"(}{}f3; 1"; '  _ ...APPELLANT

(By Sri.A.Maﬁliisuéhgtﬁaf'Réie.1_j2&dv'ocate}

Smt.H.S.S;ar"as.wathi', A. 
W}"<3.VLat=.é:_S3ri,.S.I1§_.Shankziarnarayana Ran.
Aged 'ahﬂlit 74:A'Ye::EiZfS;

Reéidingx at N{)."2.,' x V
Rame3h'wa:7a"Te;np1'eV'Street,

  3,4 Main, 'Chamarajépet,
 "Banga1ore._m 5566-G"18. ...RESPONI)EN'I'

" " :{:I3'y--._Si*i.AK,Giricihé1r, Advocate}

APPEEEL {S FELE-D UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W

. '----Si:s:'I'=zQ':~.!.,_9:s OF we AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE
». =..pA.'1i'E9'--;1.1.z'2009 mssgn IN C>¢S.N0}1(}'?45/'Z006 09: THE FILE
=;m#/1*;1I:§ 17% ADIK-. (31% {xv}; JUDGE, BANGALGRE, (cca 16).

DI--~'_-3M'¥SSING THE SEIT FOR DECLARATION" AN}? FERMANENT

? fé' -zN_J::Nc'r1oN,



 

 

THIS APPEAL CZOMENG ON FOR FINAL HEARING, TI~--§'I.S DAY,

N.ANAN{}A J.. BELIVFJREI) THE FOLIJ{}W£NG:

had sought for the following reliefs

sI.'i5__l?G§?+/fP.3i'3TT

The unsuccessfui plaintiff in 0.S.No.1'{)7«§i;:§[2'€t()6,

"17) Wherefore. it is most respe¢'tful1yTpf2zyferi

gas  't1;is_a;§p"e.av1_i;A_§' i _ j

that this H0n'bie C0urVt~b:e'~~.p§eas9}ed. to_1_5_aéV'sea'1iW

judgement and decree  favour' *9f_ tlfe
Plaintiff and ag.~%1i'r~1st v€i§3_1*eViit1ants, and
deciaring that thei".i.i)g3i'ei1-aiéiravt  a fife
interest in 1.113 sc:h"edu:.ie  View of
the regist?c§:;§;'¢: ."--.w:'g_1'° §§'am"¢i"""'o5.o4.1991
executed " 'i«at.e4"~f'j;§';i::§;S,':R.'S.i1at1karna1'ayana
Rat)... 'ziz_v' t§e'<*;vr»3£:"§ of permanent
ix1j.;v1ncti(1):r;i'i'v.";fe.§t'rai'niii'g__ the Befendant fram
alie§1ati'ng  thiré parties in
the s:i'iit.4_Vee.he'd1_11A<;..Vfjririjjerty. awaré costs and

gfaint. such"c:.t}:1er reiiefs as this H(m'i}ie Court

V'cieefﬁ'Afit grarit in the circuxzistmnces cf the

 _ Wehiihaveihéerd the Iearned Counsel for parties.

'  Th

'=.fo'1Id'v:€s:».. 

e pdints that woziid arise for determination are as

1. Whether the piairxtiff has prczveﬁ that he was
the aéepted by fate Stkishankarnarayana
Rat), husbarzé of defenéant and defendant?

?\'=.» 3 Céﬁk-»'~._€z"- 

 



   

2. Whether the plaintiff has proved that {ate
S.R.Shankarnarayana Rao had exeeu%:ed,_ a
registered wili dated 05.04.1991 (Ex.;_>';'i_32., _
creating first iife estate in fave*"ur_fg..(if7;_. 

defendant and second life estate in _.fa-vonr  "

plaintiff, bequeathing vested reniainderi" in
favour of Class! heirs of .;;=¥.a.i»ntiff'_? ' V V' '

3. Whether the impugned
interference'?     

4. What order'? "

4. The reievant facts  titre-fniieadings, evidence
and ﬁndings recorded by the£1'i"al.Vif§exirti.a_re:"avs"followsr

The   of defendant.
Late S.R.Shani{.arniair;a$iaina  tliexihusband of defendant
and he wasvivtlie   schedule property. Late
S.R.Shankarnar'a3riar1a'.iiitaei;an_d'«;iefendant had no issues. The
piaintiff X s_tyliniig"   the adopted son of late
S.R.,shanitaznarayanai iiﬁae and defendant, filed a suit,

interalia"'eer:.teaCiirig. that defendant has restricted rights

 xinderjitheiregiste-reid wiii dated 05.04.1991 and sought for the

_W..afer.estated~ reiiefs.

  'The~'i:>laintiff has also referred to preceedings in HRC

iiiN':o;«€322}/1999 and other iegal proceedings, wherein the

,
§'\:: <3  ~w»«£"7x W" "'"*'



5. The learned trial Judge framed foiiowing issues:- 

ISSUES

é$§){§;i7OC1) Ci)Z:i\)c"JL-)5.)c3z"3é3r'i§€l) 5431-3&3 aj3<'§;%o;;;ii;a.fi;3"g;3a,i9eATE"v 

¢E}_§5{)353 3\'Jac°63,%¢:jcg$50(.i) aaaéi)   

3. amoa 5.4.91C5oc:b 5oz§c>fJaVoaaS_j:9Qé§as€7._V .é;i)Jf%)AE:1j3ﬂj amsuaoad
a_.faamr3 C3355 ggyzxézig" "  jes<°§;:c~L:;af;:)::i>.»;m5r7 aim,
e:9ai)a)cD2J?jc°é;'0C:iJ   % ;; wd¢:g3.k;;;_g5;g;5¢c:; mam»
    

4. Hindu_Ad(:.;;it'i(1$::}__gmd nmwe Act {:5 :a&;3a)ami>
10 deg ét°?§'5'L"5fr)_-..§'_a "?.23{ani5¢}&i)§§3,x¥ac§ décawaﬂcpgzfom adéasacii
d)a:.)a3a;2§;2¢;;3a§':{;a">eg,§§O;liké   _  '

5. asap   ~5c%aza3e  erwws;a1'¢Jaﬁdai)P?

  o';7'aé13 5555536 ¢:5a;§c1i>s;>.> ea&3£'a)a.g;'da1>c°?

 2. .~,i>;{i.» '5c':5c°é?--"."Lj--;_ 
 .  ' v.vZ)cZra<iL'>O53_ 

_    cﬁozécﬁojaoaabzaoaegaﬁ' 6355305 5.4.91r:5o«::L:
    ¢s.;a;«2;>,§>::;§.a mead 5:i)c°€?05:S 56535 @,.«$¢::ae%r1lif'e
 interest wdabocm 63933 <i>a:)a3a3o{;dé3,%c:gg;6a1>e?T

gx; L.

 

1. "$9560 o=._fg,_%c;)aa3  egg a'o;§da)aOaai)5r)oaé.::v?T " -». 

2. 5Jaa_»/r13Jac)a5.)c;3e;3V'3ci3ad éoociiai écﬂﬁajq}  aigbgéé 

M «W tt/,3 ..;g.w..<é:ar.."' -



2. €,'?c15f.,3 c:x>c°@ ¢;La¢%;3e5 .~,-355596 z§r='e:é©aﬂc3ai3e.7"

6. During triai, the plaintiff got himself  

 

PW2-B.S.Sathyanarayana, who is alleged to.'ha've'_*v4ii'tn'essevduV'

the adoption, which according  trim; tank

66.05.1990. PW3-K.Ompraka§i1..__ Kiagénsh _.PW4C

M.Sudheer1dra are alleged ta be iijrilliaxld PW5»
K.V.Bachi Reddy is aileged._._.te'b~e1  ef registered will
dated 05.04.1991.  'i'he   on behaif of
plaintiff were   1'G';":I'he defendant did

not adduee oral. e3gfid.ene'e. 3:5-VS/zreiier, documents produced by

defendant  i?i:iVVii3vx_[}..2.

T, - The leiarnied appreciation of oral and

dvncumeynijtiavry.  aiso bearing in mind the

 ei;..l:ﬁa4vix.r..Vregarding proof of faetum of adoption.

va!:idi.ty'..9fA  principles of iaw governing the procaf
 will ﬁgs that the piaintiff has failed to prove the

""faeti1;x1,._of adoption as also execution and attestation of

 r4efg:s'tV;ér¢a"wi11 dated 05.94.1991.  
   .



 

a 8

deposed on a certain day during the Year 1968, atieption
ceremony took piace in the parental house of 
father of plaintiff namely Yoganarasimha 
plaintiff namely Seethaiakshmi gavev.t*he--.p1ai--rit'iit;t; atioipxtieii V
to fate S.R.Shankarnarayana Rao  
time, necessary ceremcnies inc'£t_1_tiitrr'g ﬁalta  tq,

adoption were perfcrmed and plaizltjiffwas given-in..a:doption.

However, adoptien rieed was   time, piaintiff
was studying" in V 0r_VI staxrdairdt  erE3ss--examination,
PW2 has deposeﬁivthatiliva:s._Vnot»aj»1rare'Hef the contents of
plaint regarding adt§;:§;tri0n"w b_  

11. Incideiitaﬁliy'itViir§f«r;ec'eSsa'rV.;r to state that PW2 is the

brother~in~1aw weftpiairit-§ff;._vl5\/$.12 has ﬁe-posed that he was not
o'fA'~.ade:pt.ipn.._A'ZFh'e,_&"fa'ther~in~1aw of PW2 infermed him that
 defeiiitiaritvariaVu.};--erA':=.i?ivusband, late S.R.Shankarnarayana Rao
 requ'e'ste'ti;A  and his wife to give the piairztiff in

' _a"c1o'ption:.e __

it  Beifore adverting ta appreciatimi of evidence (If PW2, it

 



E E

15. The plaintiff has contented on G8.05.i99O he Wastaken
in adoption by late S.R.Shankarnarayana Rao and 
for the second time. It had taken place a 
performance of his Upanayana. The piai.ntiff it
contents of Ex.P.16~I;}attu Sweekaraé Ffatzia 
second adoption had taken pla%ie"~--.on Hit': waswii

reduced to writing.

16. The plaintiff has  for the
second time on  Rao
and defendant; for petitioner would
submit that hz"1'dv~--CVa}led upon plaintiff to
produce  that had taken place
on  defendant has admitted the

second acfliotntion that-vhaqttaken piace on 86.05.1990.

17."'_InVrAo_fd_e1 u'to'_}.appreciate this submission, we have

VL'-~'peruseCi.__the Va}'§ p':1--ie'atioI1 filed by the defendant under Order

..i_i¢i'_:ax?VIV.,Rule '2'  caliing upon the plaintiff to produce SSLC

'¥._:Vt:1_1xi;.£11ati{*'g2 certiﬁcate or any other documents to orove that

' V,l:7"'ii1£'3T"Wa'i3 adopteci by late S.R,.Shankara12arayana Rat} before

.{)__€ig{)3.}99O and to proﬁuee aiieged "Bath: Sweeirara Patra"

wstwwa



,._
\..a'

plaintiff to discharge the loans incurred  Kate
S.R.Shar2karnarayan Rae. From the evidence an r€£C€J:I;TCi":.§§i'{3:.V'(1i_'0
not ﬁnd that the plaintiff had taken any painssfie 
the loans incurred by {ate S.R.Shank.arn4ara_§?anVi'iiiiaa:i'.*§i1?&ove
all, the plaintiff has not Iived    
S.R.Shankarnarayan Rae and de'fendant-ﬁeitlfieni tlie" V
lifetime or after death ef 1ate__j4_i:i.':§:',.4R;:.;2%_;;ani§ia'r:tara;;an Rae.
Therefore, the defendant contending
that piaintiff has n0f.pmV§f_@.  and that

adoption is vaIid_Vi3n  . 

21. The   relyirig on a judgment
of this count,  MYSORE 48 [in the case
of Nanjegowddt«--.<V:;.. t§I:_dn.n"ainiima 82, another}, wauld submit
tv_ha.t the»  be}; aged niere than 15 years is a

re'€._0gnised c:Vustc;jn'>in this part of the states

 The learnéedi ceuneei fez' plaintiff reiying on the

--«.i.i'_j'jf.;.d'gment éfdzhe Supreine {:{}{,t1'i reported in AIR 1991 SC

 'I  tifze case nfﬂorzciiba Rama Papaf aiias Shirke {dead}

. eiheirs 8.2; LE5 8.; aszether Vs. E'sfa.rag,:an £{0ne§{ba Papal},

"'ha4$"centended that once the custom is judicriaily reeegnised,

pg  '~-  &-'~£i4-~»-



H':

party relying on such custom is not required to be proved it

independently.

23. In the decision reported in AIR 2952 My$*i}«re

Court has held "that it is now setﬁeaci _i_n ail""thee'_':i;rfoVinces

except Bombay that in the ease of tfnjee1 feger£e_raf§iv'e'Veiaeéies

the adoption of a person is valiti 'i'f._made~ beforei1ﬁ:.ar1.ayénam--_"

and if he beiongs to the eudra  though
in western India,  zx ' 3357' Of the £011'
castes may be adog.t.e d£ ateearggz  'Lmay have been
married and hes.  '   ' V K 
24. In  21're é'e'a}i:':g with the adoption.
which aecor(3:V'i21gV  had taken piece after the

advent ofﬁxe  The ;3i.e.ﬁ':.iiff has met pieadeé custom. The

:_':"}}.1é1inti'i*f':hzéA':se.net piaeejdeny evidence to shew that people of

hie.eVo:1iir3f;i:3jt5* 'practiced cusiem of giaving and accepting a

 mboy ag.ee a'£1oeit--.V.1iiore than 15 years in aﬁeption. eentrary to

~  provisivei.-5 Contained in the Act.

K_ SeetioIx 4- of the Hirgéu Aﬁoetiene ené Maintenance Act.

VT  providing everriding effect as? Act reaés ﬁg he§*eur:der:--

JR?'  ;./M/'~ iléew'



 

"£5 213

Explanation. --~ In this subsection, "propert'_s?f'_lll'r._V
includes both movable and immovable property'
acquired by a female Hindu by inheritaArice.:ipor:' 
device, or at a partition, or in lieu of rnainteinaricie'-A

or arrears of maintenance, orfby"g'ift'tfrona__Va:iy_W

 

person. whether a relative or notlkbefore, at' or'~a,ft.ei¥__"'~
her marriage, or by her own: skill or'ml:ertiolril;  
purchase or by prescriptio'i1.,_._llhor iri  other
manner whatsoever, arid also  property
held by her as stridha:ia--.iliztzllledilatelvh"before the

commencement of this..t..Ac_t*.. '

(2)  in ::A{'ui:i--selction (1) shall
apply to airy   way of gift or
underpaid  ot'iz.er i_nstrument or under a
decreehor   or under an award
where the *-*:erri.':e.'a gift, will or other
instrurnent  'decree, order or award prescribe

" '~  a re;§t:'ri<;tV:ecl.i_estatle"i'r1"'sVueh property. "'
38. Iut" iri"e~.d_i~spute and cannot be disputed that
:7Vi'dVe.fendar2t._44hadV.pie';-elxisting right of maintenance in terms of
 22 ofhtiiie Act in the property held and left by late

 "SVIR,Shlankaiinarayan Rao. (17% (age--1 'f*"~V"°0(""\" *



f\.?
5.51

40. From the above recitals, we find that late

S.R.Shankarnarayan Rao had bequeathed the suit 

property in favour of defendant for her maintenance,'  .

with a restrictive covenant that she shalt not"i1z1:§_e,iir'ig1':t ii"

alienation in favour of Whomsoever,

41. Therefore, the cruciai po--i._x;itv.t»thet'--.wonid  for'

determination is:-

"Whether the  nature of
right held bymthe  schedule

property is sect4ior1"'h1"4{*3;") 01' 14(2) of

the Hindu-.ﬁtgcceisirsi-ori--Act, }i9'56'i""
42. The lziiatr is fei2*ly'2§jeli'set't«1e'd that creation of life estate
after the gidvetit V_V'ef_"1:I1e*. Riridu Succession Act, 1956 is

 subject toﬂisectvion 14(2) of the Act. In terms of

sectioexzi T113-c{1v;.._§f..4the 'Hindu Succession Act, 1956 any property

' Vt'--..___pVossessedi ¥::yfia*A'1.fe5:na§e Hindu, whether acquired before or

_:ii&e~.._r;f'te.r the cotrimencement of this Act, shail be held by her as

'i._"'f;ili§_"owrie*r thereof and not as 3 limited owner, subject to

V" if--r_e'5'£ricjtions contained in section Emit?) of the saicirzkct.

N  'W b,\ '~.e,..{:;(',t 1, 2



 

  "  

12,- (.5

1987 SC 2251 has held:--

43. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Guiwant Kaur

and another Vs. Mohinder Singh and others, rep0rteci"i.t1:"AIR

,'8--AI< Shri Tarkunde partie.ul_arly_--"feIie§v. 

the following passage in Bai Vajia 

case (AIR 1979 SC 993 at p._1001}<:_ 

"A plain reading of suhiisseictioni{1}':ii1akes it
clear that the concerned Hih'duiVi.:fe:a9iale mast have
limited ownership   limited
ownership would get enlarged.  tl'1.eV""c.::;c§el'ation of
that sub--sect;i'oié;.Elf itjwas*~int'e§ideti..t£>iienlarge any
sort of a right"  'h_e"se:1se be described
as owne1jshi'p.,M'V"thg__'eVxp,ies:sid'11 not as a limited
owners'   been used at all and
becomes.  is against the well-
recognises~,§rineiplez_sf..."-interpretation of statutes

that;jtheA.Legisi3,__ti1re éees not empisy meaningless

  understand the court as laying

ddwh th,-at  was enlarged by sub--secV (1) of S. 14

'guinto 2:. fall estate was the Hindu woman's estate
':g:k'1;o:yin to Hindu iaw. When the court uses the

it tx(e'rd7§;iznited estate' the words are used to commie

  a iright in the pmperty is which the possession of

 the femaie Hindu may be iegitimateiy traced, but

/7

§'x.___°3 ,fa_}£7'L 3.... 5'11:

4'; 



3 2

of late S.R.Shankaranarayana Rao during the lifetime of
defendant, even then the plaintiff filed an application under

Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C., to come on record, desc_1'i.b_ii'x1g'-.hirz1

as adopted son of late S.R.Shankarnarayana 

is a suspicious circumstance. Bearing in min'ci"the bs"uVsp'i_ciou"s'x 

circumstances and conduct of t;)_lainti_f:f i'we-.ipro'eeed'=:gto

appreciate evidence let in .b'y'-.___thei'aplainti§fi"i&i1h4_V_Vpro§ofii 

execution and attestation of the  _

52. The plaintiff has eztainined fii1i'fN:3TéIt_.v'€)tnprakash Karanth
and PW4«M.Sudheencira,  V'to,lie attestors of will
dated ()5.04.__'£«991_  '~.E;vt._P.V_13. The plaintiff has
examineti}13%/5-li§i¢;:Bae31ii"l'iieddy. who is stated to be the

scribe of Wiil";a  "

  iixid front ..the records that the plaintiff had obtained

A'--ar1,e'x, _'parte.earli'i--nterim order of temporary injunction during

 At that juncture, plaintiff had ﬁled

V dd a_,ffida\}'i~ts éﬁVf.Fﬂ§Ss3 SE 4, wherein they have testified that they

ieiliathiie not seen execution of will by late S.R.Shankar:1arayar1e

ii_R_ét;V._l'"FhAese afficiavite are marked as EX:,F.1'}°' 8: E-x-P.I8. PW3

:'C'i'§$.*x"i£{}{ support the case of piaintiff. in the examination-»in~

R;  Mate



extent to which it supports the prosecution
version. Evidence of such witness cannot.-.be

treated as washed off the record."

From the cross~exarnination of PW3 8;"  doiinot 

ﬁnd any suggestion that these witnesseisA4had«_[attes_teriw.t§ie_Awill

having seen late S.R.Shanke.rnara§'ana.. Raoigj .z':.1ff'i:.!ting."'ihiisvr.

signature to the wili as his last'a:testan1ei:t_."'Ther.e-fore, from
cross--eXamination of PV».T.;_3"   doiivnotfié find any
evidence, which is  due execution
and attestation  the evidence of
PW3 & PW4  co1:.tents of wili marked as

Ex.P.13. 'and  '1*.ei'e.rence to the evidence of PW5-

K.V.Bachi Raddy, scribe'  'Wm.

  eifid.e_n.ce of PW5, we find will was not

iigzregilzired,  and attested on the same day" PW5 has

 V deposei:¥.i;'-- Vor£'ij~j(3A'1V;04.199}, late S.R.Shankarrxarayana Rao

 came Wiitzhtwritten information on a paper to his office and

..t:vV'a25lge'd'i'himV"to draft a will. As per the instructions of late

 .5f,--R'A.'Shiainkarnarayana Rae, PW5 prepared a draft will and got

 typewritten on 61.04.1993; Late S.R.Shankarz1arayana Rao

§\;_ ¢,,¢;./k-'x_.....£'/'\--*~-£~. Y



addresses of two witnesses. The names of two witnesses,

were incorporated in the will by PW5. From the evidence of

PW5, It Is clear the names of these witnesses

incorporated even before they had signed the 

speciﬁc reference to this part o_f..»d.eposfitioh"'s..in it

unusual nature and manner in vdhicii"t'hei'~dor:.timVe»nt_twas

prepared. The will bears the'i_si.gnatnres of'tw'é;'v<~wit1iesse's.V

namely PW3 82. PW4. Thereafter;-..PV'.H3. &.PW{; {rave made
afﬁrmation reading as und_ef:§A 
"We Sri._ M.Sudvh--in§'3.ra --. and.'  '"if.';C.)mpra§iash
Karanth bo~tI£"j19}"us*.residaents:of"Bangalore. having

been  *rs'qsi:=.s;«i__ V   "'x_t"h,:e  above said
I*3xe'¢.f:vutantx/ st_a'tor'  __S.-- R. SHANKARANARAYANA
R.A0.V,"'to be witnesses hereto. both of

us having at:t'11~ali'ys and witnessed the said

V '1'e:stat.or pat signature on this document and
  a"d~r§1ittin:gH"'hefore us that this is his LAST
V  iVT§'1'LL';.t_at1:'& at his request and in the presence

H '--offevacii."L:--.oAt7VV'us do hereby sign, and affix our
re--spe_ctive signatures as attesting Witnesses

 simixvitaneousiy on this the 5"' day of Aprii 3,991."

 66.   Law is fairiy Wail settied that the Wiil has to be duly

'siigheid by the testator anti attested by two witnesses. The

'I  ..{/3/1-""'"<' 1"?'

gm,



39

whether at the first instance witnesses had affixed their
signatures to the will and thereafter,-.__ late

S.R.Shar1karnarayana Rae affixed his signature to tjhe"v..ri1'1" or

all of them had simultaneously affixed their sig.iiatt1re's:t'Ctithe'2é

will. In either event this evidence emws  eiiiiiveientii'

to prove execution and attestation of&t}i'eiv:?il1§i'~.  

61. PW5 has deposed that he headgone tqtheei-Zofiiice of Sub~

Registrar along with Ian? S_;R".'Shh-ajxilgarnarayvahaiv Rao and
presented the will for registiratioini  a.m. or 11.45
a.m., on 05.04:..1€»391--.  Rao and PW5
presented th£é4'iWVii--3:.'foi=__ i"eg1i'sitr*a__tV'i;;iiiii_atVabout 11.10 a.m. or
11.15 am: '-- the registration and iate

8.R.Shax1kar%i:i_raj(aiia 4RaGvR§?L'fﬁX€d his signatures to all the

_.pages   wiili "i+Ie}VeVsez', from the contents of the wili We

hfimiiate _V&i§.vA}§.--Sgxftax_zkarnarayana Rae had presented the will.

PW't}_ha_d  iate S.R.S}1ﬁI'§k&i'I'§aI'ay&E2i Rae before

the Siiéhwﬁeggiistrar, On the other handt one i}.B,Satish had

.,'VA"ig;;hn'fiﬁ€€i the signatures of late S.R.Shan§{arnarayana Rao in

_'_the'._of'fiée of the SLib«Registrar. In erosswexamination, PW5

.';fV1'&'S"'é€pO$f3é that he does rm: know the nameﬁ the person
 F

4\_}¢ (3,, '  ,r'/-/\""«=»CLl";i



4%)

who had identiﬁed the signature of late
S.R.Shankaranarayana Rao. From the contents of the_..v_vili we

find that one J.B.Satisha had identiﬁed:.:"*«.Vy"i.ate

S.R.Shankaranarayana Rao at the time of regis.tf*ati,o:h::o'f :t'i:e';

will. PW5 has denied suggestion  £'.1Vi1(i':vjP'¥'Ili'»VV' it

have not attested the will, one J.B.:8ati'sr1~':ha'd~. 

r .

signatures of late S.R.Shankarn_n'ai'ayan3 Rao Htiiine o'-

registration of will,

62. PW5 has deposed   the will. From

the contents of,th¢e':-.wil§i   has made an

endorsement. aitﬁxtiize:::,end_tof th"e~-.document after attesting
witnessesvlhave affi'xe'd_:Vth.eVir__:£§ignetures to the will by making

a soiernn afﬁui:x_1atVion.. We  the concluding part of the wiil

is at page No.5. V--the____norma1 course, a will is concluded by

the. testatozﬁaﬁiréigig his signature or thumb impression to

Wiii'._é'o--1gno'wiezig'i;fi§ the same as his fast testament and

Vwitnesstes attesting the document having' seen the testator

"t§ii'ﬁVxineg_ his" signature to wiil as his last testament or after

;t'_e>:;e"'i_i¥i'1'zg acknowiedgeinent of execution of $541} by the

 es-t--a't€2z1 ;'\'=  '*"'w""5"* """'4'~



41

63. Thus. we find from the contents of wili and evidence of
PW3 to PW5, the plaintiff has not placed satisfactory

evidence in proof of due execution and attestationAHof,\£ri!:I;e.  V

64. The iearned counsel for piaintiff  

decisions reported in AIR 1955 SC  {indx ofVI}'_qr'r;sh

Charan Das Gupta Vs. Paresh_ Chdrdi: Dc;$'u'%' c1 rtr__1r;

another), AIR 1953 CALCUTTA 4'és<;2_"{5n the'-c.:{s'é ofgsatipada
Chatterjee Vs. Annakali  SCC 546 (in the
case of Garden Kaur and o_tfi'ers  Gthers}, (1995) 4

SCC 459 (i.s1t««t.he'~<Hdséi:;;A{gf  Mukherjee & another
Vs. Pailttfianczn  by LRS 82, Others} and AIR

1999 sc 144"1..(in_z:{e.§ase.§;*viahyadhar Vs. Mankikrao and

;:znothe,.rjghas~ made 'folVlVowi.ng submissionsr

 . "Et_c.:i;iraot.}j'e {aid down as a matter of law that because

 ._  net state in exazzninatien-inwchief that

tfiey 'stgi;ed the wili in the presence of the testator,
"V "t'a§1.'¢'f€VVH"%t'a.s no clue attestation. It will depend on the
"'._Vc.'ircA1::nstance, elicited in evidence whether the

"attesting witnesses signed in the presence of the

5
f\? e  



42

testator. This is a pure question of fact depending on

appreciation of evidence.

II. Ever: if the evidence of attesting innit
speciﬁc but vague, Court has to take  
the surrounding circumstances    A

III. If a will appears on theiitace   dtxijfp,
executed and attested    the
requirements of   "a._'p~v.IA,'A:',4esumption of due
execution andattestation   .. 

IVE Idetitification:.ot'i_:tes:itatiotioetozivei'xth'e"'§ub«Registrar by an
  circumstance.

V. The  execution of the will has

ne_t,ente1'o;:i the witness box, Therefore. an adverse

V'  iniiefeincezundetﬂsection 44 of the Indian Evidence Act,

 "to  drawn against the defendant.

65. OS': consideration of the above submissions with

i"1*c:fere;=2a_ce to decisions cited supra, we find in the decision

ife_p€;.rit'ed" in AIR 1955 SC 363 (ﬁr: the case of Naresh Charan

:£}"as"Gupta Vs. Paresh Charon Das Gupta and another}, the

5\_,y  o9~.v» ﬁg-ﬁr»-'



;_fa€re,sta":iengef -will.

44

"79. If a wili appears on the face of it to have
been duly executed and attested in aceordan-eei~.._
with the requirements of the 
presumption of due execution anti 

applies."

69. On careful consideration of thei4afoi'estate:d'_A.ciAe'cisiio:n.;'«tier.L'
find at paragraph 18 of the '3--iiégment;*--   i"thati
requirement of iaw is thvatxthe  mark
on the wiil in the presence'ofthe;it;tesiting~.$tri_tnesses and the
attesting witnesses:iéshoulﬁgiiiiatteist.::ttiie:'V.&y'iilZ the presence of

the testator." 5-  

70,. In tire abiov=e'_.Vdee3i.4sionbhaving regard to the evidence of
DWI, the tesstator hatl'  signature in the presence of

attesting .witnes"se's,'itv"is iiielwd there is proof of execution and

" ._iir...__'t}1ie' «e_'ase~,.o%1 hand. there is no evidence in proof of

time exeui:utiv:on "and attestation of wili.

  .C5n"'«eonsideration of decision reported in {E 995} 4 .306

V"    the ease of Rabindranath Mukherjee :32, another Vs.

 .».i5anchenan Eanerjee {dead} by L35 :8; Qthersjt what has been

M 4/xecx 



 

46

decision reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3611 (in the case of

Siddaramappa and Others Vs. Smt.Gouravva).

75. The learned counsel for the defendant,V__relyinig" on 

}'udgment of the Supreme Court, reported in

207, would submit that when dispositi_on--._of profyeirties to

piaintiff is as a persona designatae«f,o"r~.by reasons  ftilfilling

a particuiar iegal status'; ~..name'Ijy," i.ti:ei"e'adopteVdi son of the
testator, not withstanding  tVha.t.iiVp.i_'ainn'tiff has failed to

prove his adoptiontestanﬁientsjiiallibejgiveiii effect to.

76. In the   We have held that the
plaintiff has faiI'e+j_..Vtg'A3VpAro.ste'«.t_hat_' he was the adopted son of
late S.R.Shankarnara3iapa"»._i3ao and defendants Therefore,

there £s_--nothiIig., for thus" to consider this submission. The

I-'fpiai.x1ti"ff i1a7--s=fa"iled to iirove due execution and attestation of

Wiﬂ,  iexainination of the will as to whether plaintiff

Vi'-«'~.wouIdA   to benefit of the will does not arise for

-.."_f-..ztonsiderafiisn. Therefore, we answer point 113.2 in the

 I1e"§ati;f"e4';'A_«'i'}:e learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of

. -e_ifidei1ee has dismissed the suit. Therefore. we do not find

  greuiids to interfere with the impugned judgrrient.

 

J31)

/,"'A__/'v W  {wt



'77. In the result, we pass the following-
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
'78. After the judgment was ciictate:'(i';A»'S1'i. Rao, learned counsel appearing for thé'-;Va1§';)Vé11anf,fpi:1.inti£f'hﬁs. made an oral request for restraiiiing '£11eVdefef~_:n§:iVaiit' 'from alienating the suit schedu1*e3..Vpro;2ert;'?L5'-éik:+._1 poiﬁﬁtingvbzzi that there was may of the impugneci decree thr0ugho1;t %;'£1£; appeiiarit had enjoyed the ¥3e€£1'e%"i.i:_Vé:3£ Therefara the plainiiff b;en:e'fit order of statug sgam fer a period the piaintiff to chalienger the ord€:r_madé"-.ir1't.hViV3 é;;_}p t:%.{}, befare the Supreme iicmri cf '- 3}' ' '~- . . . . . .. 'V ,,Sii,j§i_.4{3§.£i§ir}l1ar, learned counsel appearing far the Vresp<>k1<.1t3Vi1t/V'i1€§if:;«:f:iVs.nt vehemently opposes the suhmissiearg, b~y point"irgg:"'{;1§t'that the order sf status quo haé been given ix1i};ia£Aliy-...on1y on the prima facie materiai, etc. ané even b-éf2"o:1'*'<;j: xﬁiis Court it 1135 been cantinued ail ﬂ1(}ﬂg§ $111}? $3 E an 4 S3
82. The plaintiff having failed on both grounﬁs azsci We having dismissed the appeal, we do not ﬁnd this is an i'Ei;4}:_:a:te<:
for grant of an order of stay of an order or tO'_1géE§*£'iT,§§.i..E:'.l':.Ei_}v'l€:'N. defenciant in any manner contrary it} the proviﬁioiis afiiéaw. V' n
83. Accordingiy, the oral request anpjirdérV0i"V":-r.fé£}}f"i{;r"=an interim order as had been granited anéin_w"as in.'ir'<:§ug¢ d§;1rit1g > the pendency of the appeai cann<;f'V«};§ie _(j.ox3.'tii'm,1ﬁeiiI1" invfgfavour 9f the appellant even i}2&1'¢EV3i3.,_f.".f,:'é3I', EV-tki.e'..V_3a:zi:.ke_ of the iiifiended appeal to the Supreme Qoiirt, t;iieii£i.'pp'éi1a21t ami the request for the SE3'i'X'}€£:::,§.»S'vfﬁiiiiﬂfﬁfiii EUDGE .....
EIDGE
Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court
