Sri Sanna Borappa vs Sri Kriyappa on 18 April, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Sanna Borappa vs Sri Kriyappa on 18 April, 2012

Bench: H.S.Kempanna

M 

EN THE HIGH COUR3' SF KAR:'\IATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 18"?" DAY OF APRIL, 20 

BEFORE

THE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE_;H,'S.   

REGULAR FIRST   

BETWEEN:

SR1. SANNA BORAPPA
5/0 BORALINGAPPA .. «

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS':  _ 
AGRICULTURIST  
DODDABEERANAHALLIV.-W  . 
PRPURAHOBL13     'V
CHALLAKERE  . 2  .. *

CHITRADURJGA,_D.IS"I"RICT--.5-77'  '  APPELLANT

(BY SRLG1'B.é§[jAE{f€§SHNA&V'SHAS'TR'f<, ADVGCATE)
AND_ _  . .

E. 3R1.   '

s/<3 P£§ﬁ\FCHAF?PA'

gag-iygggag  ..... 

 fS'Ri BQ'G'FEi@;NNA

'  ':§_;'<:r 1?E5:'3sE€::»¥;&;I??l4'z3:

*-,::<:>.;<::13 §3§7.":«--?E 21RS

 3§ 5%: H':;§:x?§$§§aP?g

sis '}>g,?:q¢2~y:§?A

 V, }i*:I%:'}.§§ 53 YEARS

._.j'.a:;.°-Séi; MA:ég%_L:NG:3§pA

23;' E} M{§§§APP§x

~ " "A353 5% YEARS
(5, SMT. '§'ir£IMMAE?{E§&

E?%?;' G §v'§';§§Dﬁ_?Rs%
§:£':ES 1% 'YEERS

§§.,£,» 9:333 §i{§R£€:7E}E;T%jR§S'§'

v\"yf



R/'O SIRADA KAPILEZ VILLAGE
DQDDABEERANAHALLI MAJURE
P R PIERA HOBLI

CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 5?"? 522

(BYSRI. S. NAGARAJ,ADVOCATE    
(SR1. SHNAPRASAD KB. FOR SR1. IRAV_IfIi;,   j
ADVOCATE FOR R4«&5)   *   I ~  "

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED v.VU'/,S"~95 '01?'
CFC, AGAINST THE JUDGMEIIITAND D.EcREB'~,DATED
21.122006 PASSED IN __QS.NOI9_9;f2_OQ3 0N"TIII§:_FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE (SRL'£)_N.)_«"CHAL1IAKERE, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION; SI>If§Ig:TI'TI,0NI AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.   I   

THIS ApI§aE3II,'i;'c0I§4IIN;I*,§'oN«<.I#*(§R-- .H__E2&RING THIS DAY,
THE COURT. DI:LII*{I3;I2I:>,Ij~TI~II: mI;jLo'wING;
           
This -_   -appeal challenging the

gucjgment Vagd  Trial Court dismissing his

 S:Ii:..«§§Ied'~foT p3TfitIS_I:. and Separate p0SS<SSSiGII Sf his

":2  Shays" .iI:..fﬁ'II;e__ Suit SCIISTIIIIS properiieg.

 V__vZ%<"a:3f.7£:E'IS Sake (If €G§}V6§Eif:3E1Cf3, Iihe pariiés II'; this

 égV§§§SSI§..:?IIz.§5:IE& 'GS ,'{'§f€§°1'€§ is SS they 35% Srrayéé III TITS

 S._S:;:Vi:'-ET: the 'Saar? b€:}s:>2a2;

35 FIIS brief {S633 Sf The Sass SIS SS f:>3II§2¥S:~«
Tbs SIIEI: SQEISCEIIES §:*0peI"£§5S ST: The ag§i<::,I§%izIIiS;E

E3.§}§S bsafirzag §§EE"%?'€_§? I"§I;SI§€}?;""§, IEEI éI$I§;'§;I "§E3;'léI;§'

,m

/W

E')/VIE %t /V

.mII.v;,-W"

   2 



a:'1c'£ 113;"? measuring 15? acrcs E3 guriiag 16 acres 35

guntas, 3 acres 3? guntas, 4 acres 30 gun'Eas,v.:{::§7..f§

acres 2'? guntas rcspcctivclyg f [f ..Ta'i  ' .

Dcddabccranahalli, P R Pura HQ_b],i.»__Ch2_:l1é§k'c§i':c   '

in which, in one of the itemsg t1i:cr€f_"is°a "t>.0i'ejxéveA11

LP. Set, morcfully describcdT_ji1~...f;hc 
to the plaint (hcreingzfter VAr~3f;§éi*€:ed.,LA to' ta3.,thc "suit

schedule properties" fc::»"14*'   V 

4. It ic   'ti':1Aat he is the son
of one  V Onc Kariyappa S/0
Panchagapé  7  by came Panchappa and
Ramann'éi.»w._  Laic': had Ehrcc sens namely?

Kariy:§:{ppLa§ Bccﬁhcnnéi and Hcnncshappaa who are

 Ci:€f€:I1{§.?'§E"1§:'j§i3.,1 ii; 3 in the case. Late: Rarnaxma i.c§,

§'§i;cV".§3;c:'c??:iZ%>;:;s%_;:._'g;§"?anc§:3.ppa marricd cnc Muédamma,

-- whc  1:336 ﬁéughicr cf his sésicr Kariyamma, 'Pic said

 i.'§\;:ii;;:;§::.*ig:"::V'::33; gavc biriéz :9 E32250 $0113 namely, Eicmzzacga

-- .T.'.'a':;:':ﬂ'»cfi"rari§?a::na. 'E'hcy dicé in ihcéi' chﬁdhccdé

3. 5:3 éizc S13}? schcééﬁc §:'c;cc:*é:§c$ arc {E32
8E1{':€S;§§'8§ gcini Egzzziig ggrcgcréicc of §_..;a;i;c ?g;::chap§a 3:26

/'9



Ramanna. lganehappae the father ef the defendant N05.

1 in 3 during hie ﬁfe time was the manage:

family His bmther Ramanna was ign0rant.-->inti" .

person' He was only looking aftenthe ag_fie'u15§::fé';w vfffhev 

said Rarnanna died about 30 yeéfs  leaking" 

his wife Muddamma. FonTr_v"yearsA'after_  of * L'

Rammanna, his elder _lf2r0the1r--  'aJ:sA0VA..<:§xpired.
After the death cf  his some
defendant No_s,:;1 10  became the
manager of ennse between the
wives evf   "jvand Late Muddamma

:i.e., their "patern2§f1"e.;::i;.nf;-.: :ETh.erefore, Late Muddamrna

started iiving in..i;1*;.e ':1_0nS.e sf Siddagangamma and her

 E:-§a;nn2ea,'V:E?'i'i<i is the Engine: ef the gkainiéff.

 e_§f£':;1;ee:re:';_AV EQ3C,§:,e":.E.«iudde:nn:a was eniifgaiizag ihe Sui:

eefseénie .§§'e}§erties jeiniiiy aieng with ﬁne §efen<:Eani

 ':=:::;__ ::§¢ The defenzéanéi Eﬁeeeé 'ie 3 §i§f€:'§ giving her

 _ '3h;'&f1<;T'"?' in Laie fviuédamnzae sens was reeiﬁing with her

 V. ..;3is:er Eeanarna, ﬁe Eiéuddarnma also gserferrneé

enariiage cf fine giaintiff with Snixzarnnzag wee £55 ﬁle

ﬂaazgéfriiei" e? Sizidagangaizertna,

ex
  //
."a.:/



Note: Sidﬁaganggmma is {£30 éaughter 0f Erammaé wh0

13 the Si:-:st€:" sf Late Muddamma,

6. The plaintiff was looking after 

Late Muddamma. Thezreforeﬂ  Late   

Voluntarily executed a 1"€giSt.€1'€d.0I1  'V

under which she bequeathed'}'1€r»h;111; $i1.é1f€ 
schedule properties 1. The
plaintiff is cultivating  01:1
behalf of  .;f1:E.011=g Nos. 1 to 3.
Late    22.04.2003 at
D0ddabs;E>;"'£01;Vz_V1r:iAei.0;a'1V1jV5u2::  'gvxarformed her funeral
and 0theTA15']Vaét the death 0f Muddamma,

ha 51;}-;:'::;'e€jded.V ilﬂfﬁé fﬁalf sham in 'tbs suit schedule

 Eieianging i0 Eviuddamma, by virtue of $10

 'BS3? hers E0 was caitizraiing the suéi

V VV .sshsﬁiﬁev'-.'§i'0§&r'{:es jginﬂy with dsfenéazzi: 323052 E is 32

 'A '§E2g§  §a8§ sasssia 0? 33230?  § E20 demagdeé

.A_0]i%e?'E7'f::--'i§§0;:1'{ E'~E'0s3 :0 3 is affeci pariiiiaa Szﬁd :0 aﬁei haif

"~,V.TVs§9:§;:*0 11:} 'E310 323:3: ssheézgéa gxrspsréisgg TEES éafezzdani

323033 {:3 3 rafzisadi '£0 effesi §arii%:i0r: 333% :0 give the

shgys. "E'E:§:*a33.2fi€r., be $23,630 air: €::q2::§',r§7 azzﬁ 0:21:20 0:}





6

knew that ﬁeferzdant Neel tea 3 have exeeuied a share

sale deed in favour ef defendant Nee,-1; 

22.8.1985

! The said sale deed executed by _ Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendar;fgNos.4v"é1;1"1{§:'_5'Vi*:s v£}C>tx.l '"

binding on the share of Late Ieﬂ;11.5{i<.:

1?' came to know that defendaIi£ I\[es. 3 partition amongst themveeL'1{fe::3 onh purporting to have divhideieih properties. The said partitieh' cxleedgié en the share of Late filed the suit seelginghhbhihf ljjjertitiegziivehdiee-ei)arate possession in respect hgiif schedule properties. _ Afte1*»A'$efv£ee: ef suit smnmens, ﬁefendant fgeffﬁ %§fg€8.1"€ﬁ end eentested the suit, The suit as'eg:a§::ei~._§e§ei9:da:*:': ﬂee" 4 ené 5 eeme is he V _a'iemieee:i es? the greueﬂ the: ihezse was he eezgse ef K " * ''':¥?:ezi:ie:{f; teéiie the Sui: egeégei ihema 89 The defender}: @393} ta 3 3:1 iheir etatemenét eeaémiééed 'fihe reiaiienshge ef ieie Mudﬁemﬁe men {heme eke 3:}e:?e:':g the zaéfe ef Laie §i3i'"E{3i8;i'3E§&, wfze ie their .7». ,»// I/"

"-~»§ patemai zmele. They aise admitted that Laie Muddamma was living with them jointly by e;1jeyt';i::*:g the suit schedule properties. They .

during the lifetime of their father»AAPe;neh:a;ppe;'_':vhe 'mags h"

the manager of the joint family a:1ongw'ith*. hiss_:"'L)1fuc?€heVi?h1»e.:

Rarnanna. After his death, ._firstA'deien_dé:ht§.Was. the Karthaf of the family?' xxhé1S'~#fesi(g'iing at Gomihalli in Sire. is at a distance of oI1ve_::m__i'1e 'Village. The plaintiff ear1:1~g-.. 6~7 years ago, 1;'i11age in Sira Taluka Late aunt was living with them j0i:1tI$f"'r§jJ'eu'1€ivé§h*1§»LVthe suit schedule prepeniies. 'She :_11:ei.,e.b6'3h!ie""":E<:'e'd her share i:: {he egg: eeheﬁuie V*§>fe§§e:'*£iies_A'§:é"h'fevezzr cf ihe piairééiff. They eeié item §'§<>.,':§__"'ef 'eehedazie preeeriiee 03:: QZQCESEEQQE he fevezgr hf _é§":e éefeeéaﬁi fies. % med 5 is imgreve ihe isééfz:.'§3f3;j'A"e.prepe:*f:ies 331$ fee" éegegi meeeseéiiee. '§'he gale ﬁeeﬁ executed in feveu: ef {he defeniiaht ﬁes. 4 and 2%

-fie tea} and geauineg iihe eaie ﬁe 'eindigg eh. Laie igiﬁiﬁiﬁdaiéiﬁiﬁﬂ '§he piaéhiiff £3 :3 eieahgez ﬁe ihei: §§£1E§}Z /~"'*' % ye, He has he ioeee etandi to question the sale treneaetior:

effected by theme Differences arose between theV:te:'ee there was nor: Cooperation in between the ef; _ the family: Therefore, they givided' , fexhily "' 'V properties under the registered V'-.pa1it'ie:j:o11A'tieeii 'de'tedii.t_' 21.04.1999 and the said pertitioﬁ'A'2vVe;~:. ow-i3th% consent and eoneurrehee --p§¢etha1:,euA1'§t Late Mucldamma. The tor_V1oeus standi to question He never enjoyed the€.:jotnt1y with them.

There ifetf " plaintiff to file the Suit. the relief before the probate Cotust. -§_teAir;ot..ehtit1ed to any relief as eought fox: ._':LE§eeehi.:ng1y;"they eeught fer ehemtieeai ef the Sui:

'ee::::veet t'%1:et;$'Ea::iVrﬁiffe the beeie ef the eboee eteediegse the 'Erie:

K x " '"V.{fee:?:_.fre;ieeé the feiieveézsg ieeeee:»-- "E. 'Whethe? Geeeaéegg giver: egg the pieietﬁf" is tree eerzei eerreei?

/4°' 1% / 22 Whether ie§<::irz:1fj*;:»:'e::es {hat Late Muddamma had executed a wili beéiueathiﬂg her haﬁiifﬁ share in the 3:5? schedule properties and it is her Zast

3. Whether plaintiff gei""i:ei;;f share in the suit schedule "I ' V "V '

4. Whether plaintiff' e:1Afitled>'V " n K mesne proﬁts? [fee ' -- 1 2

5. What decree 0r_.;G_fde_r?fi 10¢ The plaintiff ii: 1 his case got himself €Xa.IHi:I1€'{:'1¥ as P'{.A_W.§»]' witnesses as P.W.2 and which eame to be méifk e'd defendant Nos. 1 to ,3 in eti'pperi:V ef get examined the third defenda:1ii ﬁe eﬁei §j3f'C)dL1C€d E2 deeumente, V. ea}:ie§:'ee§ine"e'i.e be 1?:Vie;i*i§eé as EXB: it: 2&2.

A ':.%§3iT1¥3:3'V%§f§a§ Ceuri ihereefiea ea heariag ihe 'éeaeeed eeuﬁeei fey ﬂee reepeeeive §}3,1"ﬁ8S and ffiii geing 1 V~%fm*e::gh éihe eviéeeee age éeeemente er: fﬁéjfﬁfii heié {he gerzeeiegjg givee 'bf; eke eieirztiff is {me eecé :jee:':*eef: 'ea: he has feiieﬁ ﬁe greve that Leie Eeiuﬁdarezee has begueetheeé her he}? ehere E33 ﬁne euié; eeheéeie properties under the Will E:«;,Pi exeeuted by her. He does not have half share it: the suit eehedtii.e properties. Insofar as issue No.4 is eoneer1?te'd;' _ observed that it is left open tg p the d'ee'1"ee "' proceedings and accordingly?

:21é12.20oe, dismissed the sU:_i_f'*Qf the'ptaihtifft

12. It is the 1uega,1ity the said judgment and decree that by the appellant K plaihtipfftihih thisi "

13, -------- '----.eeu'neevI'§ appearing for the appeilartt 2' the Trial Court has committed 31:1 =erro_r 1.inH.>£:1ismissing the suit ef the ptazieitiff net app:*e-eiatihg the evidence ef the piaihtiff '=ahs:i i'§;is":;f£%;:i'e3e"-. he its right perspective He further eeﬁte1éde§.--th;:;*i; theugh the evidence en reeerdé mere %h"-.-e._'_'pert§ee£e.§j§§2 eeédteizee ef 33%.? eeepied with the p'te%;:ee:§;:;e ef Biéfiz/IE eéihehihgiy eetabheheé that éhe WEE} up by the pieihtiff has been peeved :2"; aeeeréehee

-« Ease: the Triei ﬁetzrt E3}? eeeigeiﬁg ﬂimsy reeeeh has eeme :0 the tereeg eeheieeien that :he Wit: hae he':

been preved in aeeerdanee with iavv by remeving 3}} the ezuspieieus eireumstanees that have been I"aiS€C:.;..VW"}j1ViCh is Contrary to the evidence on record. contended that even assuming the':i'at£::;i1"'Vhe:rs_ d"

have been excluded by the test§atQ::'_"i,Hat7by~ not be :21 sufficient gI'C':,_1f:~€:1. to?}1o1dd'»..et1,ep~i.cieus " L' eireumstanees have net bee:3.._?:di'epel;1'ed."$553 eheldfi by the Apex Court in the AIR 1995 SC 1684 in the ee.e'e.___<>f AND ANOTHER :i'3;%.NNERJEE AND "S'C~~«'-3:362 in the ease of PENTAKdd'-A eEEfrH.AR_%iTHNAM AND OTHERS. He 3»_ee:2_ier:de'd'v*----':E:at ihe Trial C9123": by aesignieg' f€R$G17§Sg"v.fé3}'ii:'f{i'SE6 net validly eueiaéeabie in iesea has eef:2,:':éiite_rieu:f_:':e€re§ in heiding ihet the eéainiiff has edit "ee:abE§:eEi:e~d hie eaee age: éheeeey has diereiesed iéze A "sgggiai, eeizxzei 'ee eestaizsed, the game be gee aside K ejiewézzg die aepeaé, I w"

§x j

16. Per eontza the iearneé eeunse} appearing fer ihe cenieeting respendents supporting the judgement and decree ef the Trial Court . the Trial Court on appreciation offphe evi_:iefIe.e'_':Qf'D,'W.2 attesting Witness for the Wi11~E}<f;-1P, 1_.""ahdA'i1e¢Vihg to the suspicious eireumstéuieee Which.héxve'-het...been * V dispelled frem the evielenee aha; as no proper reasons have "the testater to exclude the nvaturgl to 3 has not commiatte the conclusion, that the ﬁplaintiff has not been proveciih He further eontended as the evidenee zen, reeerd alse reveals that Late :x.}h.e'v--ie«"the paziernal 32,231: ef defendant ﬁe. :,€ﬁ;:;§;e"-fevirag with ihem and jeinijy ezﬁiivaiing §he,'_'eVui€_ee'h_e5e1u1e preperiieeg the 'i'riaZ {ﬁgure has eei ".ee:emi':f:e?l:-E en? ewe: 21:2 eemieg :e the eenehieieié that V"--z§_§~;e» §§e;§::%:§ff has met eeiebﬁeheé his ease aha ee ihe éhfidirxge ef the '"fr3Ze,1 (fear: deee eei suffer from agy V' irzfirﬁziéy eaﬁérzg fee imierfeeenee 31:2 {hie aeyeal, fihe game be éiésmiseeée E27, Taking rival eententiene ﬁnite eensideraiiee, the evidence and deeumente on record, the p_4ei:it._<'that arises for my eensideratien is:~ 'Whether the impugned jgdgrneni'Ve:h'<"§;'.';Vdee:§g V the Trial Ceurt calls for any ientelrfereheeiy.'

18. Inter~se re1ations'1i'i:J.;T):._"ef'deferieiexeyti to 3 with Late Mudda1nn1§.,,,'is ease?

defendant Nos. 1 to 3 a1"e Late Muddamma Le'teV¢"I?x?é1111*¢:1énna§ who is the brother had predeceased en record reveals that eating Aiize" and Ramarma, they were;1ivi:1g §eii:2:L;% Vene were euitivatieg and enjeying fghe Zeeifé'ee1'iee1::E'e-._preperiiee jeiniijg. The evieienee er: reeerd é;iee__;re%;?e?'§;§.e '£*:.§':'e.;"é the deeeeeee Late E~./iudiéeeémee efier ihe Eieeth. e¥'§'E1er husband Remeeee, eee he? b€e{he§~§e~ " :--§,a::;*;Eaeeheppa Wee Iiizezgf gadih defeeﬁeet Reef: ée 3

-- e:;i€itze,t%::g the suit: eeheduie efepeeeéee je§:2*:iE§;? €:r€*L%1 {hem eeé her fare ehiiéree eerie ihzeegh her eeeeeeﬁ Leie Remeeee heﬁ expieed ie their ehiieﬁrzeeeé eee fee}? hee ae éeeeee ieezeeﬁiezx 'E'%;e:"e§e:"e§ 'size defenéarit Nos} to 3 and Late Muddammai the testator constituted as members of joint family and were-«.._a'i~so enjoying the euit schedule properties evidence on record also reveals... thatfthe" 2 Nos} to 3 were giving Late the crops raised in the jointifeim_i1y 193 it is the about 30 years, priorto L}éttt%iVA"i'i.}],':t1t:C1daInfI1a, she started IiVir1g_' Qt?' Eramma and He is the son of Eramn.1e'."V_v of the plaintiff that Late Muddariiirie; her sister Eramma and Sidd:;gahga:tiH:e'_i" Veiatighter of Eramrria as she was ':iegieete':};:Aée;:':ti«.._i1et teken eere eff preperéy by defetiﬁant §§'i:>;s5';'."iM. ee matriineriiezi heme. its he was taiiiiigf V _ eareef her*%}?ith aii ieve eiisﬁ affeetiezi white she Wee it i,i*ssi::g'4 with. her sister Eeamizie ené Siddagangeiemag V' .1j'.$§:--eEequethe& her share ef pyepert}? iii the geint feiiiiiy "--«:VVv§:*epei'ties ii": hie faafeur tiaéer the Wiii Exﬁii er:

4 :'§€§i{}3i:2:i?€i3. ?}"i€i"E'€£1f§EE', Late Eviedéaezma {tied ee

22.§é,2QG:3i After he: dezstii eise tee eieieéiff /'V /'/ E5 eemiinued ﬁe jeintly cultivate the suit schedule properties along with the defendant Noel to course of time, by virtue of EX.P.1, the p1EliI1%.iLf!"f"' ~ for partition and separate p<)_pes.eesior1.V"efC§he" a schedule properties from U16 They did not accede to hiTs3v"":equeSt.V__ he " V made an enquirye atthat he eame to know that defendant 3 item N 0.5 of suit sehedulekeexvledge of Late Muddammeaj' N084 and 5.

Further; A' effected partition among themseyh/pee of properties under the pa:r:itio11 This partition also ""~._Veee:i>}§di:}.§ te ihevp-E-eéntiff has been effeeteé amenget 'fhe éefendeei Nee': ﬁe 3 Witfzeué ihe keieg,%éieévge--'e§ iaie Eifiudéareznag Therefereg the plaintiff 'wee eeeeﬁeaézzed te fiie éﬁe emf: ageing: éhe ﬁefeziéegei ie 3 eeeégeg fer pereitéen and separate "'-'.«:V'p_::seeeeeion ef he}? share in the Suﬁ eeheduie pmpertiee :~ E:>e1e:::gir:g ie Laie Mzgéeemma Whiefrz has (beer:

hequeeiheé E25: 3&5 {eves}? by her {he - Eséiﬁé, fa J,» , "

e/'

20. 0:': the ether hand, it is the ease pf the defendants that Late. Muddamma lived their family. She was cultivating the sdit properties along with them join:ly..._4ASh.e.Vieddditig peaceful Cordial life with them, theif'diarr£.ag:i~..df1. account of some misunde1*eVfan>dih'g 9 the family between their 'Vfhey dvﬂafere 'fereed to divide among themseiﬁee' they divided among effected by executing 21.04.1999. This was paternal aunt Late.

oh account ef some family necessity; i}'1:P:§f had fe_s'e'1'} ene item ef the suit sehedule p:e§§ei:*tf:_ee 2:2'; fe:e'eé:'i*"'e'f {he defender}: Nee, 4 and 5 and eeee;éidi§fi§3"§§?; "E;E':ei;; eeid ihe eame and éihai was eiee EC} {he ef Late: Muddamma, ee she was iiving 9 ' »- w _ 'eziiig H * %§'he yiaihiiff has fié EEQXLES wiih iheir fegniiy, Eée VA '"=..::::e:§'e:* euiiivaied ihe suit eeheduie preperfiee jeirzfggi " * " eiezig with ihee"; ei es} §>e:?:::'i ef iéeze mesh Eeee eiihef derézég {he ﬁfe iime ef Evhzddezxzzee er aﬁier he: §€3§:§2e / ac, ./ éiﬁ//) in 'V9 Late Muddarmna has no': executed any WEB rnueh less EX.Pl in favour of the plaintiff. I": is a get up de_e1n:1:e;<1f: to iay a false claim en the suit schedule ~

21. The plaintiff has bzgsé::L%er1;se4.§c1:gﬁ;n§e-:geeee,jij;e%[« extent of half share in the_'suit*--sehedu1Ve77lpnolﬁefiiies belonging to late Muddamrnvég yirfne Will ~« Ex.I-'>1 executed in _>The eeid Will executed according to denied by the defendanf/e.' itfiet the plaintiff is the son ilramma. The said Muddat;;r :'r1n:_1_V;a! 1 '.;..<_2:_iV*en in marriage to Late Ramanneef eSife'de}:epﬁe..,énllageE It is the ease ef the V p1ai1fR}§i'f'i"} that ee ~éV_1iV1:e:'e ezae no eerdie}; relationship in the gnezirizgiezzie.-§%?:.en:e ef Muddainrneg she started Eiving in €%:e -7iiae:iee"_'»-.65;her sister E?3iif}§'EEa enei her eieiiefe

--V e1e,u§§::e:4.ﬁiﬁeegengaznzneg Rzriiéier, :2: ie Elie case that ::<:§:,e':::.g see}; in ihe heuee ef his zieeﬁeei' E:°e.n::n.e '--~7en;=;§ his eieier Sidéegengarnme, he was iekéng Care ef '4 ezééh eii lieve and effeeiien during fag end :35 her ﬁfe. '§'he:*efe:°e§ eeeeedéng ie em; iesie Evinaéﬁangeze e};ee:;?:e§ ﬂee eeiéi EXEQ 'ee§n,eeiE*:%:1g' ﬁe: E12235 eéseee in ﬂee em: ye es' E 'I, E8 schedule pmperties in hie faveur. The twe circumstances indicated :0 Shaw that the i'€1aii(}Vf;.'$ihi_p of the deceased Muddamma had been straineéi"WE§f;fi;f1:.~*;___ _ family of the defendants is that, <3§:fenda;'1tS" h_€1C3.. "

sold one item of the suit schedule p1f0perty._i1': favbii:f'€3fe_:

defendants 4 and 5 wi1:hou1:' 1_:he_ eoﬁseﬁi L' of Muddarnma. The ether is that, the defendante%fr€'Cted Partition among themee1ﬁ re.s properties under a 244.1999 and this partitien""*.x@'§r the knowledge of V living with her sister Eraxnnje a1?i:i he:v;1aAu.ghf;er Siddagangamma and as she '"'«.f;&73;e__E'eg-itgsgfgsibleﬂf{;r'°pe:°f0rming the marriage af the 'ﬁne Shévamma §fe,Siddaga:1gaImr:a, (sisier Q2'. ;i§§§::§t%fﬁ and as ihe piaigtiff was takiﬁg Care ref "he: eG%§§;}'eiE}? in her fag emii 0% E§.f€g she exeeuiee Effie W313 if} his faveu: mfgéier whieh ehe bequeaiheé her ..,§.Et;are ef the euit eeheduie pgepertjyz 22$ Nezaa iii 3:33 is be 5386?} aeheﬁzee éhe giaizaziiff 12;:

iiéés ease ﬂee ggrsevegi ":Z%':e WEE in aeeesdaieee Waiéih Eew Ms , E'://iv,-e"

E9 and has aise diepeiied at} the suspicious circumstances that have arisen in the facts and r:::Er(:t:mstat1{:esV 'the C8136.

23. As the plaintiff 15 the pre*po'eta.na¢r V EXJP1, the burden is on him to the in his favour in aeCordar1€;eV "'with 1--a_W'-aas "protrided » 11/363 of the Indiaait'~~SuceeeSV1e't1: of the Indian Evidence' Act. of the Will is We11--settif::ti;'V '.:¢j't:e...t§fep0under of the Will has to? a tte'sting witness and he has sttVefVe'i_eiQLteVVeircumstances raised by the C01: :=t 'i:ot an the Wii]. executed in his favggjft piaintiff in Qfﬁﬁf ts prove the will e§:ee%1tec§t."t§;§;'T:; iate Mudéamma has relied ttpea the testiaézisﬁgg' at ?'éf,§? --- Bheeragga, eae at the atteetittg A' --.%>?§§I"_;;3SS;

2% FER? is a resident at Eedéabeeyanabaili Wilﬁfﬁ the gait eeheétﬁe gspertiee aye alas sitaateﬁg 333$ aefertzaaégzts E ta 3 ate tiszgigg in Sifaﬁiaégapiiee K¥§':§C§3 2% is at a eiistanee {if i to i%'j2 Zkrns frani Beddbeerahaiii, it is also an admitted fact that 'rate Muddarnrna after her marriage was living in Shiraciakapiie ;"i--ri matrimonial home and was cultivatinge. '~..:;s1,1ii:

schedule properties jointly along

3. PW2 in his evidence C1air:is'«-thatiabidut 3:

to his examination befere _th§'«5.eC:€%ased sent wards to him through is the husband of Siddagangaznma, {the {the plaintiff. Accordingly; ._ .' V 1-to the plaintiff i.e. Cierieased Muddarnma was living "either attestor Ningamia was aisn prese:'nt;' A'~.e_i;1irther Claims at that time ' V' fifv'IiKfia§jEE.:2'i9tA€Xpf€S*S€'V her desire ta bequeath her share ,9? preperty in faveur ef the §)i€:1iI}'§Ziff anai.4__there§§j§7ei; requesteéi him is eerrie tea Ciiaiiaiiere as iiéteiiéa in exeeiite a Wiii in faizeur ei the niiaintiff, iéeeérdingijgi neat ﬂay he aierig witii the teatatesr and ~~«::£ther attests: Niriganna assent near the effiee {if the Sub Regietrar at éiiriaiiaiiere, The sieeeaaeé §\:'§'LE§ﬁ&§1}.§'i8;, the teataiei: §u.re:%'naaed the gtarnp igapers and thereafter? R;

,,»''l "

'fr'?

5/«.4.

te the hearing ef the testeter and as ehe eeeepted the same' it wee registered? The}: affixed their sighatuteitt the presence 0f the Sub Registrar saying that witnesses who can identify the LTM of the_.te»ete.te19.§:: He V' " has also stated in his evidence thjat the: 7 f point of time was hale and 1iea1thy."'-Shewa.e" _s_VQu_'1'31dV% mind and had got executed eh hef xéelition. 26' In the has admitted that .ji:i~Qt of Eramma.

and likewiee itetV"'*<.§v7i's'i»ted the house of defendéthte that there is he I'€1Ei'{'ZiO1"1S.}'1i.'§.§3{3'§.W'€t€'i"t'h:_h'}*:;riﬁ€ testateig the piaintiff and the §:'_§efee.dahte 3'; He has further admitted in the eeeeeuexemiheetien that, hefere exeeetieh ef the Wiﬁ E2:>;,E3.E' eet, gehe te fihe heeee ef Eramme' j E':::'t';§1e:5';.'V2::i'4hie CfQSS~€Xaf'3T1iIE8.{iQE1 he has eiee eémiiteel A ..ﬂ~¥:hei;;._:i; eves it; the preeehee ef the S1:h~§;eg:iei:*e§ that ' the teeteter effizieé he? :.:"§1'v'E emf; iheeeefter, they efféxeﬁ {heir eigeetureet 'ﬁﬁrzeeeeeg ﬁe hie es;i§eeee~:1e~ehie§; as ahead}; geimeé eat; he eéeiree the: the Witt ~ EXP? wee jezeeered at ihe fire: §::eeees:::e e}: the eeréhe en ihe ' " -- l"'5.f}§§"§S.l'$évii'.Zi:i 'ehefg ei inetruetiohe ef {he teetafor in their presence. The Contents were read over to her and else to after the testator accepted the Contents to _ their presence, she affixed her.J»lL;'Iil\/I Thereafter, (they also affixed their same followed by the seribe;'l__Vl'h_View admitted in the er0ss~e>:amiha.t.io13_ ii1e_1sIiiii'ch,_AaeV,lhe has claimed that the eignature in the presence of 'ilhelreafter, they affixed themeeribe would give rise toivihe' lwheiﬁ-liler at all the will was prepared o:-3.1 hijojeeted by the plaintiffl It was Veirongly " evei--1te1-1de*d by the eounsel for the p--lein€iff"""'§hVat einee PW2 hae given his ee23:de1%ii:,e' iizéequieeeai 'germe the: the ieeiaiez' affixed he?-.4._;lI§'iv_\%'£~ ihe §fE'€':S€ﬂ€i€ of ihe Sub~Regiet:er and ﬁxed thee; Sigiﬁaibifee which ie fezriher d..l'e§fe§::gl:heeed by the ehdereemere: made 333* ihe See»

-Regietreiz would go is eeéehlieeh the: éhe '§v"ill has been duly exeeuied Eh eeeefdehee eziih lee; erid theeefeyee ihe Cr)"

éhere is he f'§:i2i&§(}£l éie d§ee:erd éhe eeeie, if ehefa :

$33%§2é&e§e\%te%zwmmmmmmwmma.mWmWmMmnnh_, enly eireumstanee, the argument eeulcl have been accepted. 8111; there are other eireumstaneesl wléhieh are glaring to rule out that the will hag not existence in the manner claimed the "

first circumstance is that the 'gh 'pl_eLifitiff"'l'°:fc_1Sa;Ve Al pleaded and has claimed in ._€3Vid€"if1Cf;' thevifeaeqr} 17019 late Muddamma 1:0 come i:1_ the' l"l:)';1ﬁ;AseVf%of her sister Eramrrla is thal,"4il'1e:J partition and as they had sevlcilone property in favour of the knowledge of ihe has now been made to in evidence daes not fine! a l1j1j_ Apart from this, the recitals V"=i:: EE;§;P2,l;e..re:;eal €:h2:;§"'7she is living if} the house ef her .§iS§,--_e%* ere'e.e::eEl;g..{?*:§§§e%f'}, The evidenee en reeerel zeveale il:3§_SI'1€:~ aﬁésgellliving in her ﬁzeirimenial heme ané was u""'-__V"jei::i§j;' veizliivetézzg iize 3133:: eeheeaile pzeperiieel léée _ gfvéiésiiéféable £"€8;S{)EEES aye eseigrsee ﬁe exeluée ihe legal = .35:-ei:*s ékeé defendaeés 1 Se 3 as against ihe plaiﬁiifi whe ﬁe lie: eieiefe SSE}. 'fheugh {he eeurzsel fer ﬁle agpeéllegfg 'if€:lE€§EE€§§l:§2' eerziegeleel §E;;e;;, exeleeéee ef Elie . 'x ..«''X/' 'e lee?' W:

ix} (Jo natural heir tic: net give rise to any suspicion? rsiying upsn the tws decisions advsrted to above, in thc:%V.i};it:3;s and circumstances of this Cass, in Vi€\>V of the _ of PW2 and the recitals in E:2:.pI?i its.e1f,*=-- '4 it suspicion though not may be grave, Wilts' to hold against the defend:gin'ts.. anicii that plaintiff. This is more so besa.ii:Vss._ti'i.c:A 0théri--:sAt1s;;5icious circumstance that is the W111."

Ex.P1 is that thsfirst is a stamp paper, Vendor as to when t>1}ii'shs.sed by him from the four sheets in which the Contents {:xfi'£"EX.'P1Vv11ets--._;be~;4::h typed hear the seal having '-hssi'::t.:§u;*-shassd ii'si'i:"i:he tivsasury en ZLEQQQS. Apart .2'fi_'ifV}V}'}E 'Vi;§.*}';_:Si.'v:iiZ:€*~§if;!3§LO§f'8tph at the tsstator that has hssn affixsé s'3:..'tii;s'V;hsck sf the first page sf the wiii sf ths é;éststs%*v.§i_if:*i::ii bssn §23;rSi€§. 0%: the signsturs at ths Sigh- s:.«'*§s§f-istiazx ii sf: sit this: shstsgraph had hssn affixsii hsibrs rsgistratisni ths S§gﬁ8J:?.i§'€ sf the Sub Registrar "sit the siid shsziid have cams an ths §he:v':sgi*a§i"i and net hsisw ins gshstsgysphi ihis is ansthsg /W"

is' eireumsiianee which goes ﬁe show iihat the Will might not have come inte existence as eiaimed by the pieﬁiiiff M PW} in his evidence and stated to Vb}; evidence. Since these suspicious»eire:,ii:is*;:§1;neeVs 'are. glaring, it is difficult to accept :i?he1'_'Sii'ibIitiiss~iQi; 'cg-../::Iiei_:

counsel for the appe112iIit"~...V that V th_ei'i..V r L' circumstances have been gii?iri§._eQ§ent and proper explanation. put and which is not other than the childreii:,"--0i*:" of the testator Muddf'«1'riii11.w¢'iV.i: ﬁany Cogent reasons in the Will' she is excluding them as against tiie pEa;%.i:tiff;"°uin whose faveur she has V' -.iee:§ii:ea.thedA.herieiiegfe iii the euit eeheéiiie prepertiee. 2?; '."_""l%T'e;'i§ing iyere any engiei iiie evidence ef PW: iiie iieziéeeiiiig '?i?"iiLI1€SS ﬂees ﬁe': iiiepire eerifieegiee ie A §ie;e--e reiieriee ii: viiew ef é/he faei: the? the eiaieriai en eeeerd reveals éhai ilrie deeeeeeé E:/iaieiséaiéiiiia wag iiving wiiii the eiefeiiéeete arid W38 geiifztiji eiiiiizfaiizig the eei: eeiieeﬁziie p§'G§€§'i1i€% eieiig wiiii éiieizi, ii ie éiffieiiii 'ie believe iiie ieeéigeéezijg eé §'%E?i tiiei, he wee €§.§":i'%'3:{,'ii'i§ We 2*'/) f"/.. .

2 2&5;/,2 the suit eehedute property along with defendants E ta 3 and after the death of Muddamma else Cultivating the same with them. The .

appreciation of the entire evidence and .the"'-dQCt1'me.nts "' placed on record. has come to the {fight 'C§)I1C'IL1Sui(3tf}' holding that the will prop'§§ti11.§ied--'Abyj the not been properly proved:j_.:.rt"f3%erde;1iCe_ lawn Further, the evidencekeirtlhh*re:;:Qtt*e?v not disclose that the deeeztsed her sister Eramma :h;t"e.{_ that Vi€W of the mattergas Court is based on the facts in law: does not Call for any intetfei:"er:t:e V221}: th_1'e":ippea1, is dtsmieseé, 'the parties te beat ' their ettrsjz h eéetf¥:_." '_ §§§g%::

Lﬁfte

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court