Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The defend ants admitted their relationship with the plaintiffs. They have denied the other averments of the plaint. The d efend ants contended that the plea of the plaintiffs that suit prop erties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defend ants and deceased was the karta of the und ivid ed family are all false. They denied the plea of the plaintiffs reg arding the Will. They denied the cause of action. It is the defence of the defend ants that the p laintiffs are well aware that defend ants No.1 and 2 acq uired absolute right and ownership over the suit property as legatees under the registered Will dated 25.5.2001 executed by propositus Mahadevapp a. It is further their d efence that the p arents of Mahad evappa died long back and he did not possess any movable or immovable properties. Late Mahad evappa in ord er to earn livelihood commenced a cloth business and started earning . He was a freedom fighter. One Laxman Narayan Anantbhat, who was a close friend of late Mahad evapp a, gifted the lands bearing Sy.Nos.284, 319/1, 319/2 and 319/3 situated at Sambra in Belag avi through a registered gift d eed d ated 12.2.1947. So these lands were self acquired properties of late Mahad evap pa. The prop erty bearing CTS No.2157 was purchased by late Mahad evapp a through a reg istered sale deed dated 27.6.1946 for a sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- from one Veerappa Malleshap pa Kurali. He has performed the marriag e of p laintiffs by spending hug e amount and had given gold ornaments, silver articles and other valuables to the plaintiffs, so as to see that plaintiffs lead a comfortab le life in their matrimonial house. Since the date of marriag e, all the p laintiffs are resid ing in their matrimonial house comfortab ly. The said Mahad evapp a and Taramati used to stay with d efend ants No.1 and 2 and they looked after the welfare of their p arents. Late Mahad evapp a had maintained a very good health till his death. The said Mahadevappa died on 8.9.2007.

12. The learned counsel further argued that the suspicious circumstances as argued by the plaintiffs were also not p roved and not tenab le. The learned counsel pointed out that the suspicious circumstances are - (i) the deceased Mahad evap pa was suffering from diabetes, blood pressure and cancer. He was not keep ing good health. No documents are produced by the plaintiffs to show that Mahad evap pa had any such d isease. Even nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of the defend ants in this regard. On the other hand , in the year 2002-03, the d eceased Mahad evapp a went to Goa to p articip ate in a felicitation function org anized in his honour as he was a freedom fig hter. Therefore, the first circumstance that the deceased was not in a sound state of mind has no basis. (ii) Attesting witness DW.2 is an advocate. That cannot be a suspicious circumstance. In fact, the said ad vocate has practiced for 40 years. He is neighbourer of d eceased Mahad evapp a's house. So, he being a neighbourer and ad vocate, it is quite natural and normal for Mahad evapp a to consult or contact DW.2 for making the Will. So, the said Ex.D.12 first Will came to b e executed. There is no dispute about the said Will. The said defend ant DW.2 has stated that he has seen Mahad evapp a signing the Will, and then he attested it. The other witness Sattig eri also stated that, after knowing Mahad evapp a signed the Will, he attested after seeing it. So requirement of the Ind ian Succession Act are complied. (iii) The third suspicion is reg arding purchase of the stamp paper, name of the typ ist and no reference to earlier Will. The learned counsel submits that if Ex.D.12, the Will is perused, it is also in resp ect of d efend ants No.1 and 2 only. Ex.D.13 is also in respect of two children. Simp ly the name of the typist is not mentioned or the stamp pap er is purchased earlier is not a suspicious circumstance. (iv) The other suspicious circumstance is that the Will is not a natural Will. Such a contention is also not tenab le. The intention of deceased Mahadevapp a was to bequeath the properties to his sons. He never intended that any of the prop erty should go to the daughters. He has made averments as to why d aug hters are not given any property. The properties being the self acquired properties, the testator had capacity and right to bequeath the Will as per his own wish.

21
iii) Whether the learned trial Court Judge erred in allotting share to the plaintiffs only in 1 acre 27 guntas out of total extent of 2 acres 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.391/1?
iv) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is capricious and p erverse, and need s interference by this Court? If so, to what extent?

21. We have perused the judgment of the trial Court. The learned trial Judge consid ering the documentary evidence prod uced by both the sid es, held that the suit prop erties are the self acquired properties of propositus Mahadevapp a. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs have not pleaded the source of income to purchase these p roperties. On the other hand, it is evid ent that one of the properties was gifted by Laxman Anantbhat through a reg istered gift deed. So, Sy.No.319/1 is the self acquired prop erty of late Mahad evappa. It is only the heirs of Laxman Anantbhat, who can challeng e the gift, but plaintiffs cannot challenge the said gift as it is alread y acted upon. The trial Court also held that PW.1 ad mitted that her father commenced cloth business for his livelihood. CTS No.2157 was purchased by Mahad evapp a through a registered sale deed . Simp ly b ecause it was resold to Mahad evappa, that does not amount to ancestral property. The trial Court held that plaintiffs have failed to p rove that the suit prop erties are the joint family p roperties of the plaintiffs and the defend ants, on the other hand, they are self acq uired p roperties of Mahad evapp a.

23. We have reassessed the evid ence on record in the light of arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sid es.

POINT No.1:

24. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defend ants. The oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff clearly shows that suit sched ule properties are self acq uired prop erties of the d eceased Mahad evapp a. The suit land was g ifted to said Mahad evapp a by one Mr. Laxman Narayan Anantb hat through a registered gift d eed dated 12.2.1947 as per Ex.D.7. The same is also admitted by the plaintiff. The house property was acquired by deceased Mahad evapp a through registered sale d eed which is at Ex.D.8 from one Veerappa Malleshap pa Kurali which is not d enied by PW.1. The deceased Mahad evapp a was a cloth merchant. He had no other income or any ancestral properties. Therefore, in view of the evidence placed on record , if the find ings of the trial Court is consid ered, it is evid ent that the learned trial Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the suit prop erties are the self acquired p roperties of late Mahad evapp a. POINT No.2: