Karnataka High Court
Nanda Kumar. N vs Smt. Komala on 3 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44154
RSA No. 1709 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1709 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. NANDA KUMAR. N
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
2. ANAND @ ANAND KUMAR
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
BOTH R/AT NO.628,
'B' EXTENSION, BANNIMANTAPA
SHIVARATHRESWARA NAGARA
MYSURU CITY - 570 015
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
ALSO R/AT NO.1097/C,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 5TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
KARNATAKA PRAKASH NAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 021
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B R VISWANATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. KOMALA
W/O MURUGHESH K M,
D/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44154
RSA No. 1709 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/AT NO.6, 3RD MAIN,
BAMBOO BAZAR,
MYSURU CITY - 570 021
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SUMATHI S, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.02.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.162/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VI
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
MYSURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
2. This appeal is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44154 RSA No. 1709 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff before the Trial Court that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 took the specific defence that their mother has executed the Will in their favour on 03.05.2014 with respect to the suit Schedule No.1 of the property and defendant Nos.1 and 2 also took the specific contention that they have paid sufficient amount to the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.
4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that it is not in dispute that property belongs to the family and the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties taking note of the defence of the defendants in the written statement regarding execution of the Will. Having taken note of the fact that Will was executed in the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44154 RSA No. 1709 of 2024 HC-KAR month of May, 2014 and the testator passed away in the very next month i.e., in the month of June. 2014. The Trial Court also considered the fact that the document at Ex.D4 is dated 15.02.2014 and the Will is dated 03.05.2014. But the Will at Ex.D1 was signed by the mother but 3 months prior to the said Will, the testator affixture her LTM on the document of Ex.D4. Hence, taking note of all these factors into consideration comes to the conclusion that Will is not proved. So also, in respect of Issue No.4 is concerned that they have already paid sufficient amount to the plaintiff, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that nothing is placed on record before the Court to substantiate the same. Hence, granted the relief of 1/3rd share by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.162/2022. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged before the Appellate Court, formulated the points and also on reassessing the oral and documentary -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44154 RSA No. 1709 of 2024 HC-KAR evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence and answered the points as negative and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that merely because some of the documents contain the thumb impression and also the signature of the testator cannot be a ground to disbelieve the Will executed by the mother in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The counsel would vehemently contend that the Will which was executed in their favour is the self acquired property of their mother and said property was acquired out of the income of the joint family. The counsel also vehemently content that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the Will and small admission on the part of DW1 and DW2 is magnified with -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44154 RSA No. 1709 of 2024 HC-KAR regard to doubting of the very Will. Hence, it requires interference of this Court by admitting the appeal.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that with regard to the Will is concerned, both the Courts have rightly comes to the conclusion that document of Will came into existence in the month of May, 2014 and the testator passed away in the month of June, 2014; prior to 3 months, i.e., in the month of February, 2014, the document of Ex.D4 was executed which clearly discloses that the testator had signed the document by putting her left thumb impression, but within a span of 3 months, signature of the testator is found in the Will. The Trial Court has taken note of the said fact into consideration. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, in page 35 and 36 considered the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 and in paragraph 27, in detail taken note of the same and also in paragraph 28 comes to the conclusion that -7- NC: 2025:KHC:44154 RSA No. 1709 of 2024 HC-KAR when the property belongs to the mother, all the family members are entitled since there is no any testamentary document which was propounded by the appellants was not proved and the evidence of witnesses also creates doubt. Hence, it does not require interference of this Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering the material on record, it is not in dispute that property stands in the name of the mother. But, whether the said property is a self acquired property or purchased out of the income of the family members is immaterial before this Court in view of document exists in the name of the mother. It is also important to note that mother becomes an absolute owner of the property in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The other contention of the defendants that they have paid the sufficient amount in favour of the plaintiff. But in order to substantiate the same, no material is placed before the Court. Apart from that when the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:44154 RSA No. 1709 of 2024 HC-KAR defence was taken that Will was executed by the mother of defendant Nos.1 and 2, both the Courts taken note of the fact that within a span of one month from the execution of Will, the testator passed away. Apart from that, the document at Ex.D4 came into existence in the month of February 2014. But in that document, the testator had put her left thumb impression. No doubt, in the year 2009 also one more document was executed i.e., mortgage deed, wherein also left thumb impression of the testator is found. But in a surprise circumstances, i.e., within a span of 3 months of Ex.D4, in Ex.D1-Will found the signature of the testator. Having taken note of all these factors into consideration, both the Courts come to a right conclusion that the very execution of the Will is not proved. The Trial Court in detail discussed the material available on record holding that there must be a reason for disinheriting the daughter while executing the Will in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. When such being the case, the very contention of the counsel appearing for the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:44154 RSA No. 1709 of 2024 HC-KAR appellants cannot be accepted. The Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances particularly, the signature of the executant i.e., testator since, in Ex.D4 dated 15.02.2014, found left thumb impression of the testator and within a span of 3 months from Ex.D4 i.e., in Ex.D1 dated 03.05.2014, found the signature of the testator. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantive questions of law invoking Section 100 of CPC as there is no any perversity in the finding of both the Courts. This Court, while exercising the power under Section 100 of CPC, must find the perversity in the judgment of both the Courts to admit the appeal and to frame substantive question of law. In the present case, both the Courts have passed reasoned judgments appreciating the very existence of Will is concerned. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the appeal and to frame substantive question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC since there is no any substantive question of law as both facts and law are considered properly.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44154 RSA No. 1709 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.As. if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN