Karnataka High Court
Siddappa S/O Shankrappa Divatar vs Smt Sangavva W/O Kgurappa Angadi on 8 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16367
RSA No. 100537 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
RSA NO. 100537 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SIDDAPPA S/O. SHANKRAPPA DIVATAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI-587 201,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P VADIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT SANGAVVA W/O. GURAPPA ANGADI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.,
1A. BASAPPA S/O. GURAPPA ANGADI,
Digitally
signed by
VISHAL
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL
Date:
2024.11.20
R/O. HULIKOPPA, TQ. RAMADURG-591 123,
12:15:43
+0530
DIST. BELAGAVI.
1B. PARASAPPA S/O. GURAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIKOPPA, TQ. RAMADURG-591 123,
DIST. BELAGAUM.
1C. SHRIKANT S/O. GURAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIKOPPA, TQ. RAMADURG-591 123,
DIST. BELAGAUM.
1D. PAKKANNA S/O. GURAPPA ANGADI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16367
RSA No. 100537 of 2018
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIKOPPA, TQ. RAMADURG-591 123,
DIST. BELAGAUM.
1E. SUBHAS S/O. GURAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIKOPPA, TQ. RAMADURG-591 123,
DIST. BELAGAUM.
1F. MALLAPPA S/O. GURAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIKOPPA, TQ. RAMADURG-591 123,
DIST. BELAGAUM.
1G. SMT. RUKMAVVA,
W/O. MALLANAGOUDA SINGODI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HALAKATTI, TQ. SAVADATTI-591 123,
DIST. BELAGAUM.
2. BASAVVA W/O. BHEEMAPPA DIVATAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI-587 201,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A
TO G); R1 IS DECEASED;
SRI. PRAKASH N HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.05.2018 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.13/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BADAMI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2015, PASSED IN O.S.NO.304/2008
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, BADAMI,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16367
RSA No. 100537 of 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)
Plaintiff is before this Court in this regular second
appeal, assailing the concurrent findings of facts recorded
by the Courts below, whereby, the suit seeking declaration
and consequential relief of perpetual injunction based on
registered Will dated 14.02.2007, plaintiff came to be
dismissed by the Courts below.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents and perused the
material on record.
3. Parties herein are referred to as per the rank
before the trial Court.
4. Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction to
declare that the plaintiff is the legal heir and successor of
the deceased Adiveppa s/o Dhariyapa Wari ("Adiveppa" for
short) in respect of ½ share towards West in Sy.No.234/2
to an extent of 3 acres 12 guntas by virtue of registered
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16367
Will dated 14.02.2007 executed by Adiveppa in favor of
the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that in partition
between two brothers namely Basappa and Adiveppa, the
suit property fell to the share of Adiveppa, Adiveppa was
an unmarried person and he used to come to Badhami
stay at the house of Shankrappa Divatar, the father of the
plaintiff and that Adiveppa executed registered Will dated
14.02.2007, which is the last Will of the deceased
Adiveppa, the plaintiff has acquired right, title and interest
over the suit property.
5. On notice the defendants have appeared and
defendant No.2 filed written statement admitting that suit
property fell to the share of Adiveppa. The defendants
inter alia denied the execution of the Will by Adiveppa in
favor of the plaintiff. The case of the defendants is that
Adiveppa was owner of ½ share in the suit property, he
died unmarried, the brother of Adiveppa by name Basappa
and his wife Bagawwa predeceased, the branch of Yallappa
extinguished after the death of Adiveppa, the said
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16367
Mariyappa succeeded to the share of Adiveppa in the suit
property being the nearest relative and the defendants
being the legal heirs of Mariyappa are entitled to succeed
to the property left by the Adiveppa.
6. The trial Court based on the pleadings framed
necessary issues. The issue No.2 was "Whether the
plaintiff proves that deceased Adiveppa s/o Dhariayappa
Wari executed registered Will dated 14.02.2007?
7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1, three
witnesses as PW2 to PW4, marked documents at Ex.P1 to
Ex.P7. On the other hand defendant No.2 examined two
witnesses as DW1 and DW2, marked documents at Ex.D1
to Ex.D3.
8. The trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the
plaintiff has failed to prove that the deceased Adiveppa
executed registered Will in favor of the plaintiff, by the
judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the suit of
the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred appeal
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16367
before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court
while re-appreciating the entire oral and documentary
evidence confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial
Court.
9. Plaintiff's claim is that he is the absolute owner
of the suit property in light of the registered Will by
Adiveppa in his favor on 14.02.2007. The burden is on the
plaintiff to prove that there was a Will executed by the
testator in his favor. In order to prove the Will, the
plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and attesting witnesses
as PW3 and PW4. PW1 in his cross-examination in
unequivocal terms admitted his participation at the time of
execution of the Will and also that the charges towards the
registration was paid by his father, the relevant portion of
the cross-examination dated 11.07.2013 of PW1 is culled
out as under:
"ªÀÄÈvÀÄå¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ EzÉÝ£ÀÄ. vÁ:
14-2-2007 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄÈvÀÄå ¥ÀvÀæ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. §rØ FgÀtÚ ¨ÁAqÀ
gÉÊlgï EªÀgÀ PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
E§âgÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄPÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ §rØ FgÀtÚ£À PÀqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉݪÀÅ. §rØ
FgÀtÚ¤UÉ §gÉAiÀÄ®Ä £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ªÀÄÈvÀÄå¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀ
£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÉÆAzÀt PÀZÉÃjUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £ÉÆAzÀt PÀZÉÃjUÉ RZÀð£ÀÄß
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16367
£À£Àß vÀAzÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂAiÀiÁzÀ 45 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ ²gÀ¹ÛÃzÁgÀ
EªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄÈvÀÄå ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ £ÀA: 234
DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ «¹Ûtð 6 JPÀgÉ 11 UÀÄAmÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
CrªÉ¥Àà¤UÉzÁªÁ D¹Û CªÀ£ÀvÀAzɬÄAzÀ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CrªÉ¥Àà£À vÀAzÉAiÀÄ
ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ zsÀgÉAiÀÄ¥Àà. zsÀgÉAiÀÄ¥Àà£À vÀAzÉ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. zsÀgÉAiÀÄ¥Àà¤UÉ
E§âgÀÄ CtÚvÀªÀÄäA¢gÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ zsÀgÉAiÀÄ¥Àà¤UÉ
CtÚvÀªÀÄäA¢gÀÄ E¯Áè JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. §¸À¥Àà CrªÉ¥Àà¤UÉ CtÚ
DUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ."
Emphasis supplied
10. The attesting witness, who has been examined
as PW2 also admitted the presence of the plaintiff at the
time of execution of the Will, the relevant portion of the
cross-examination dated 29.08.2013 of PW2 is culled out
as under:
"£Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁPÉðn£À°è PÁAiÀÄ¥À¯Éè vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÁÝUÀ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 12-00
UÀAmÉUÉ CrAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÁj £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄÈvÀÄå ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É.
CrAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÁj £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄ w½¸ÀĪÁUÀ CªÀ£À eÉÆvÉ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ
EzÀÝ. ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀÄå ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß §gɹPÉƼÀÄîªÁUÀ ªÀÄUÀ£À
ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¹zÀÝ¥Àà. ±ÀAPÀæ¥Àà£ÀÄ EzÀÝ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ±ÀAPÀæ¥Àà, ¹zÀÝ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CrAiÀÄ¥Àà
ªÁj §zÁ«ÄAiÀÄ ºÀ¼Éà vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀ C¦üøÀ ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄÈvÀÄå¥ÀvÀæ
§gɹgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄÈvÀÄå ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß §rØ JA§ zÀ¸ÀÄÛ §gÀºÀUÁgÀ£À ºÀwÛgÀ
§gɹgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. PÁUÀzÀ §gÉAiÀÄ®Ä CrAiÀÄ¥Àà ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉUÉ
¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸À¨ïgÉf¸ÀÖgÀ D¦üùUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
Emphasis supplied
11. The suspicious circumstances that surrounds
the Will are:
a) Shaky and doubtful signature of the testator.
b) A feeble or uncertain mind of testator.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16367
c) Unfair disposition of property.
d) Unjust exclusion of legal heirs.
e) The active involvement of major beneficiary in the
execution of the Will.
12. The plaintiff is the beneficiary and has played
an active role in the execution of the Will, as evidenced
from cross-examination of PW1 and PW2. The law is well
settled, the conscience of the Court must be satisfied that
the Will in question was not only executed and attested in
a manner required under the Indian Succession Act 1925,
but it also dispelled the suspicious circumstances. The
Courts below have rightly appreciated and arrived at a
conclusion that the plaintiff, the propounder of the Will has
played an active role at the time of execution of the Will.
The findings recorded by the Courts below about the
suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will does not
warrant any interference by this Court under Section 100
CPC and no substantial question of law arise for
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16367
consideration in this appeal and this Court pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The regular second appeal is hereby dismissed.
ii. The judgment and decree of the Courts below
stands confirmed.
Sd/-
(JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)
AT
