Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The first plaintiff all along was living with her husband and after his demise she was residing with first defendant the only male member of the family. Her stepson sent her away from his house during her old age. Therefore, she was forced to live with her daughter who is the second plaintiff. They demanded their legitimate share in the joint family properties, but the 1st defendant did not effect any partition. On the other hand, when late Patel Hanume Gowda was unconscious suffering from disability on account of paralysis, by playing fraud and undue influence on him got a Will dated 16-6-1962 executed favouring Mr. Narasimhaiah and his son. In the year May 1962 when he was supervising the work of a tank at Srinivasapura he sustained paralytic stroke. He was brought home with the help of Kadirappa one of his servants. Dr. Narasimha Murthy from Doddaballapur attended on him. Mr. Patel Hanume Gowda was unable to move out of his bed till his last breath on 6-2-1965. In that situation the first defendant's son who had dominant control over deceased Patel Hanume Gowda secured the said Will detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs.

10. The 5th defendant filed a separate statement who is the purchaser of the portion of "E" Schedule property. According to him, he purchased southern portion of plaint "E" Schedule property in new No. 138/153 (Katha No. 746) situate at first ward, Gandhinagar, I Block, Doddaballapur from defendants 1, 4(a), (b) and (c) under a registered sale deed dated 21-5-1980. The vendors were also parties to the said suit. If plaintiffs have equal share in the said property, the 5th defendant is ready to pay Rs. 24,000/- towards the approximate value of plaintiffs share. He further admits that said property is a joint family property.

24. The documents at Exs. P. 23 to P. 26 pertains to properties of Hanume Gowda, described at "D" and "E" Schedules. These are houses, sites and factory building in kaneshmari numbers situate at Marlenahalli and also Doddaballapur. "D" Schedule pertains to kaneshmari numbers of Marlenahalli and "E" Schedule pertains to door numbers of Doddaballapur. It is not in serious dispute that these properties were also acquired by late Patel Hanume Gowda with his avocation as an agriculturist. It is out of the income from agricultural lands. Therefore, said properties also are rightly held as properties of joint family acquired from joint family funds.

41. The plaintiffs also rely on the evidence of P.W. 2 one Mallikarjuna, native of Mareenahally. Unfortunately, this gentlemen says he was not personally aware of incapacity of Mr. Patel Hanume Gowda due to paralytic stroke but people were talking about his physical and mental incapacity. He says he was not personally aware of his paralytic stroke and some doctor from Doddaballapur used to treat him. He was not even aware when exactly he fell ill and he never visited him during said illness. According to the plaintiffs, he was bedridden and was unable to talk. For about three years, he was in said condition. However, in the cross-examination, she says her husband was able to talk till his death and she does not know anything about the execution of the Will. P.W. 3 was also examined in this regard. This witness says one Dr. Narasimha Murthy was treating Mr. Patel Hanume Gowda for three years before his death. P.W. 4, one of the farmers from the village who was cultivating the lands of the family says after paralytic stroke, Patel Hanume Gowda was not able to walk, talk or raise his hand or write anything. Unfortunately, in the cross-examination he says, he was not aware of nature of illness of Patel Hanume Gowda. He says with stammering Patel Hanume Gowda was able to talk. He also speaks about the treatment under Dr. Narasimha Murthy. Dr. Narasimhamurthy was alive as on the date of evidence of these witnesses. He was still practicing at Doddaballapur. This paralytic stroke suffered by Patel Hanume Gowda is totally denied by the defendants. The best evidence would have been by the Doctor who treated Patel Hanume Gowda. Why he was not examined is known to plaintiffs alone. If only said Doctor was examined in the absence of some prescription or otherwise given by the said Doctor, one could have placed some reliance on the oral evidence of said Doctor. It is also strange circumstance why Patel Hanume Gowda was not admitted to any major hospital at Bangalore for the said treatment if he was paralysed totally as spoken to by the plaintiffs. A person of great respect in the village owning several properties, financially sound and especially when they lived so close by to a city like Bangalore, it is rather surprising to know why he was never brought to Bangalore for being treated at a hospital with better facilities. He was not even admitted to Doddaballapur Hospital. He was treated at home by Dr. Narasimhamurthy, according to the plaintiffs. In the absence of said doctor being examined, it would rather be a difficult task for the Court to accept paralytic stroke and consequential incapacity of Patel Hanume Gowda. As a matter of fact, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 5 would indicate that Patel Hanume Gowda was able to talk even during the alleged illness.