Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Sri B.N.Gudiyapa was the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.54/1 originally Sy.No.54 situated at Venkatala Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk more specifically described in the schedule to the plaint and herein after referred to as the Schedule property. It is further alleged that under the registered will dated 04.04.1952, the said Sri B.N.Gudiyapa bequeathed the said Schedule property to Smt.Vedamma - his daughter-in-law for her life towards her maintenance and thereafter to the share of defendant No.2 B.S.Sonnappa and his brother B.S.Nanjundappa in equal share. Further, it is alleged that the said Sri B.N.Gudiyapa died on 06.05.1952 and as per the will Vedamma inherited life estate in the Schedule property for her maintenance and likewise, 4th defendant and his brother Nanjundappa acquired the right to obtain possession of 1/2 of the share each in the suit property after the life time of their mother Vedamma.

16. In the written statement so filed the 3rd defendant amongst other pleas it is pleaded admitting the ownership of the land bearing Sy.No.54/1 of Venkatala Village, Yelahanka Hobli/schedule property, by late Gudiyappa, besides also admitted the execution of the will by him which is dated 04.04.1952. It is further pleaded that under the said will, the property was bequeathed to the two grandsons of the testator by name Sonnappa and Nanjundappa - sons of his predeceased son Seetharam. It is specifically denied by 3rd defendant that under the said Will, the said property was also bequeathed in favour of Vedamma for her life or for her maintenance.

35. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the following decisions. 

     i)     RAM SARAN AND ANOTHER -vs- SMT.

            GANGA DEVI (AIR 1972 SC 2685);

     ii)    SMT.      PARAMESHWARI            BAI         -vs-

MUTHOJIRAO SCINDIA (AIR 1981 KAR. 40;

iii) A.M. ABDUL KHADER -vs- BERNARD LOBO (AIR 1978 KAR. 28)

iv) PUNIT RAI -vs- DINESH CHOUDHARY (AIR 2003 SC 4355)

36. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents apart from narrating the sequence of events which has occasioned with regard to the schedule property, submitted that under the will dated 04.04.1952 which came into effect on the death of the testator on 06.05.1952, the suit schedule property was bequeathed in favour of not only Sonnappa but also in favour of his brother and the mother and they would inherit such right only after the death of their mother; further he submitted that both Sonnappa and Nanjundappa were given equal share in equal proportion in the suit schedule property, but, the property as such was not apportioned and in the circumstances, they held the same jointly and besides till the life time of Vedamma, who had life interest over the property neither Nanjundappa nor Sonnappa had any right over the same as per the recitals of the said will. In the circumstances, the releasing of his right of undivided share in the property so bequeathed by Gudiyappa by Sonnappa in favour of other co-joint owner - Nanjundappa and his mother Vedamma who had life interest is a valid release. Besides, he also transferred such right for consideration of Rs.10,000/-; Further he submitted that in view of the subsequent happenings of execution of the settlement deed in favour of Sonnappa and his wife and children and also by restricting the right of Sonnappa to meddle with the property, Sonnappa had absolutely no right of alienating the suit schedule property.

56

61. In this context, it is to be seen that on perusal of the will, it is clearly mentioned that the schedule property is bequeathed to the joint names of both Sonnappa and Nanjundappa, their individual share is not defined or identified and it is clearly mentioned that all those properties were bequeathed in favour of his grand sons in equal proportion between the said Sonnappa and his brother Nanjundappa. In the circumstances, the execution of the release deed by Sonnappa in favour of Nanjundappa and also in favour of his mother who had life interest under the said will cannot be said to be invalid document. Besides the said release deed is also registered and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is received by said Sonnappa by his brother and his mother.