Karnataka High Court
Shantawwa W/O. Sadashiv Petlur vs Basappa S/O Girimallappa Yallatti on 11 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
RFA No. 4101 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 4101 OF 2012 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHANTAWWA
W/O. SADASHIV PETLUR,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKOD, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN - 591235.
2. SMT. PADAWWA
W/O. RANGAPPA KORADDI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BELAGALI, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN - 591235.
3. SMT. SUREKHA
ASHPAK W/O. MALLAPPA SHESAGIRI,
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HOSUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN - 567301.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. SMT. RANGWWA
W/O. BABUGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. PANCHAGAVI, TQ: RAMADURG,
DIST: BELGAUM
PIN - 590002.
5. SHRI. RANGAPPA
S/O. SADASHIV PETLUR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
RFA No. 4101 of 2012
R/O. MUGALKOD, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN - 591235.
6. SHRI. THIMMANNA
S/O. SADASHIV PETLUR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKOD, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN - 591235.
7. SHRI. BASAPPA
S/O. SADASHIV PETLUR,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKOD, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 591235.
8. SMT. KALAWATI
D/O. SADASHIV PETLUR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. MUGALKOD,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 591235.
9. SHRI. GOVINDAPPA
S/O. SADASHIV PETLUR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKOD, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 591235.
10. SMT. KASHAWWA
W/O. SADSHIV PETLUR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MUGALKOD, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 591235.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.H.R. GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
RFA No. 4101 of 2012
AND:
BASAPPA S/O. GIRIMALLAPPA YALLATTI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1a. SMT. MAHADEVI
W/O. BASAPPA YALLATTI,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NAVALAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN - 567301.
1b. SHRI. GIRISH
S/O. BASAPPA YALLATTI,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. NAVALAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 567301.
2. SHRI. SHIVAPPA S/O. BENNAPPA SUNAGAR,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 591235.
3. SHRI. PANDIT S/O. BENNAPPA SUNAGAR,
AGE : 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 591235.
4. SHRI. SHRIMANT
S/O. BENNAPPA SUNAGAR,
AGE : 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 591235.
5. SHANKARAPPA S/O. BENAPPA SUNAGAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
RFA No. 4101 of 2012
5a. SMT. NEMBEWWA
W/O. SHANKARAPPA SUNAGAR,
AGE : 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 591235.
5b. SMT. LAXMAWWA
W/O. SHANKREPPA SUNAGAR,
AGE : 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
5c. KUMARI SUREKHA
D/O. SHANKREPPA SUNAGAR,
AGE : 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 591235.
6. MOUASAB S/O. RASOOLSAB ASANGI,
AGE : 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN -567301.
7. SMT. HASEENA W/O. ABDULSAB WALIKAR,
AGE : 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ALAGUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 567301.
8. SHABBER S/O. MEERASAB JUNEDAKAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 567301.
9. MUBARAK S/O. MEERASAB JUNEDAKAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 567301.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
RFA No. 4101 of 2012
10. RASUM
S/O. MEERASAB JUNEDAKAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 567301.
11. HUSSEN
S/O. MEERASAB JUNEDAKAR,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 567301.
12. SHRI. VISHAL
S/O. VIMALCHAND OSWAL,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. JAMAKHANDI,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN - 567301.
13. SHRI. SAIDOOSAB
S/O. GUDOOSAB ASANGI,
AGE; 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN - 567301.
14. SMT. GANGAWWA @ PARWATEWWA
W/O. KALLAPPA NAIK,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: VENKATAPUR, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM.
PIN - 591307.
15. KAMALWWA W/O. GOVINDAPPA BIRADAR PATIL
SINCE DECEAED BY HIS LRS
15a. Smt. TANGEWWA
W/O. HANUMANT BALARADDI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
RFA No. 4101 of 2012
R/O. AT KURAVINAKOPPA,
POST: HIREKOPPA,
TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG.
PIN - 582101.
15b. SJRO/ HANUMANT
S/O. GOVINDAPPA BIRADAR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSUR, TQ & DIST: BIJAPUR.
15c. SHRI. RAVI S/O. GOVINDAPPA BIRADAR,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSUR, TQ & DIST: BIJAPUR
PIN - 586101.
15d. SMT. RENUKA
W/O. SHASHIDHAR MUDENUR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HUKUMANAL, TQ & DIST: BIJAPUR.
15e. SHRI. SHEKHAR
S/O. GOVINDAPPA BIRADAR,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSUR, TQ & DIST: BIJAPUR
PIN - 586101.
16. SHRI. VASUDEV
S/O. SIDRAMAPPA SONAR,
AGE:75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
17. SHRI. IRANNA
S/O. VASUDEV SONAR,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
18. SHRI. SHRIDHAR VASUDEV SONAR,
19. SMT. KALAWATI
W/O. VASUDEV SONAR
20. SMT. MAHALAXMI
W/O. IRANNA SONAR,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
RFA No. 4101 of 2012
(DEFENDANTS 16 TO 20 ARE RESIDENTS OF
MUTTUR GALLI, RABAKAVI, TALUK: JAMAKANDI)
PIN- 567301.
21. SHRI. MOHAN
S/O. MAHADEVAPPA PATTAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
22. SHRI. KALAPPA
S/O. MAHADEVAPPA PATTAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
23. SHRI. RAVINDRA
S/O. MAHADEVAPPA PATTAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
(DEFENDANTS 21 TO 23 ARE
RESIDENTS OF BANAHATTI
NEAR VITHAL MANDIR,
TQ: JAMAKANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN- 567301.
24. SHRI. NAGAPPA
S/O. SIDRAMAPP KAYANI,
AGE: 69 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHIKKAPADASAALAGI,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 567301.
25. SHRI. SHANKREPPA
S/O. MALLAPPA LIMBIKAI,
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAREGUDDI,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 567301.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
RFA No. 4101 of 2012
26. SMT. BAGAWWA
W/O. SATTEPPA NYAMAGOUDAR,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SHIRAGUPPI,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN - 567301.
27. SHRI. SUBHAS
S/O. NINGAPPA KOKATANUR,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUTTUR,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN - 567301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. M.C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R8 AND R9;
SRI. RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R13;
SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R-25 TO R-27;
R1 (A &B), R-4, R-5(A TO C), R-6, R-7, R-10, R-11, R-12,
R-14, R-15 (A TO E) AND R-17 TO R-24 ARE SERVED;
R-16 IS DECEASED AND LRS ARE ON RECORD AS R-17
TO R-20)
----
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MUDHOL IN O.S.NO.409/2009 DATED 03.07.2012 BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
RFA No. 4101 of 2012
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration
of title over the 'B' and 'C' schedule properties based on
the Will dated 29.07.1955 executed by Thimmanna
Lakshmappa Yalagudri, who was the grandfather of the
first plaintiff's husband Sadashiv Petlur and great-
grandfather of plaintiffs No.2 to 10. A declaration is also
sought to the effect that the sale deed executed by
deceased Venkavva, who is the daughter of the testator
Thimmanna, and the sale deed executed by defendants
No. 14 and 15 in favor of defendants No.1 to 12, as well
as the sale deed said to have been executed by deceased
Kallappa Siddagiryappa Chinchakandi, in favor of
defendant No.3, are sham, bogus, and not binding on the
plaintiffs.
2. The suit is resisted by defendants No.2 to 5, defendant
No.12 and defendants No.16 to 20.
3. The admitted facts are as follows:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
3.1. Thimmanna was the propositus. He had a wife
named Rangavva and a daughter by name
Venkavva. Venkavva had a son by name Sadashiv.
3.2. It is stated by the plaintiffs that, Thimmanna
executed a registered Will on 29.07.1955. As per
the terms of the said Will, limited estate is
conferred on his wife Rangavva till her death and
the properties covered under the said Will were
bequeathed in favor of his grandson Sadashiv, after
the demise of Rangavva. After the death of
Thimmanna, on 20.08.19556 mutation was
changed in the name of Sadashiv the alleged
legatee as per M.E.No.378. It is further stated
that, Rangavva, the widow of Thimmanna died in
the year 1982 and her grandson Sadashiv died in
the year 1989. Venkavva, the daughter of
Thimmanna, died on 08.09.2000.
3.3. After the death of Sadashiv on 20.12.1989, dispute
arose regarding the properties standing in his name
and an appeal was filed before the Assistant
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
Commissioner to enter the name of Venkavva in
the property records as the successor of
Thimmanna and Rangavva. The children of
Sadashiv objected to the said claim and the
Assistant Commissioner passed an order to enter
the name of Venkavva in the property records as
the successor of Thimmanna.
3.4. Thereafter a suit is filed in O.S.No.13/1991 by the
present plaintiffs, against Venkavva, Kallppa
Siddagiryappa Chinchakandi and Basappa, claiming
the relief of declaration of title and injunction and
the said suit was dismissed. Against the said
judgment, an appeal was filed in RFA No.390/1994.
The said appeal was allowed in part in terms of the
judgment and decree dated 12.04.1999, wherein
the relief of declaration was not granted, however,
an injunction was granted in respect of the suit
properties, and the respondents in the said appeal
were restrained from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
Liberty is reserved to the appellants in the said
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
appeal to establish their claim relating to the title
over the suit properties on the basis of the Will said
to have been executed by late Thimmanna.
3.5. Thus, the second suit in O.S.No.409/2000 is filed
and the present appeal is arising from the said
judgment and decree.
3.6. The suit is contested by the purchasers of the
properties from Venkavva. They claimed that
Rangavva was given a limited estate under the Will
dated 29.07.1955, which became absolute and
Venkavva inherited her properties as sole Class-I
heir after the death of Rangavva in the year 1982.
Later, Venkavva sold some of the properties which
devolved on her. The contesting defendants, who
purchased the properties from Venkavva or from
purchasers from Venkavva prayed for dismissal of
the suit. They also raised a plea of adverse
possession and bona fide purchase.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
3.7. The Trial Court has held that the plaintiffs are not
entitled to the relief of declaration and the suit was
dismissed.
3.8. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and
decree, the present appeal is filed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Basavaraj Sabarad, appearing
for the plaintiffs/appellants would contend that;
4.1. The Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit despite
the finding that the Will in favor of Sadashiv, the
predecessor in title of the plaintiffs is duly
established.
4.2. The testator Thimmanna, in the Will referred to
above, has clearly stated his last wish that,
Sadashiv should inherit all the properties and
Thimmanna's wife Rangavva will have only limited
estate till her lifetime. Hence Section 14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act does not apply and Rangavva
did not acquire any title over the properties.
4.3. Even assuming that Section 14(1) of the Hindu
Succession Act did apply to the present facts of the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
case, Rangavva did not make a claim of absolute
ownership under Section 14(1) and she allowed the
name of Sadashiv to be entered in the property
records till her death and Sadashiv enjoyed the
properties as the absolute owner and after the
death of Rangavva, he continued to exercise his
absolute ownership and possession. And decree for
injunction is granted in RFA No. 390/1994 in favour
of his legal heirs and this being the position, the
dismissal of the suit in effect virtually set aside the
earlier judgment in RFA No.390/1994.
4.4. The conduct of Rangavva would clearly demonstrate
that she did not exercise any ownership over the
properties and she wanted her husband's last wish
to be fulfilled and she wanted her grand son
Sadashiv to be the absolute owner and as such, any
alienation made by Venkavva is one without any
title and the purchasers did not acquire any title
over the properties.
5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments:
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
i. Navneet Lal alias Rangi Vs. Gokul and
others1
ii. Kothi Satyanarayana Vs. Galla Sithayya &
Others2
iii. Jogiram Vs. Suresh Kumar3
iv. Ranvir Dewan Vs. Rashmi Khanna &
another4
v. S.B.Sampat Kumar Vs. S. B. Parasmal &
another5
6. Sri. Ravi S. Balikai, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.13, would contend that;
6.1. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act does
apply to this case. He contends that, admittedly,
Thimmanna's wife Rangavva, was given the
properties in recognition of her right to
maintenance. This being the position, the limited
right conferred under the Will dated 29.07.1955
would enlarge into an absolute estate and after
Rangavva's death, her daughter Venkavva would
inherit the properties as sole Class-I heir and
Venkavva in turn sold the properties to bona fide
AIR 1976 SC 794
AIR 1987 SC 353
2022(4) SCC 274
2018 (12) SCC 1976
I.L.R.2021 KAR 1642
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
purchasers, and thus the purchasers have acquired
valid ownership under the registered sale deeds
executed by Venkavva.
6.2. It is further contended that, the act of Rangavva
facilitating the name of Sadashiv to be entered in
the property records, does not amount to creation
of right in favour of Sadashiv and such an entry in
the record of rights does not create any title in
favour of Sadashiv and title of Rangavva is not lost.
6.3. He would further contend that, Rangavva would
acquire title of property by operation of Section
14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and when the Act
confers right in favour of a person, the person need
not do any specific act to claim right over the
property and as long as right is not extinguished in
the manner known to law, it is to be held that
Rangavva continued to be the owner of properties
till her death and on her demise, the properties
would devolve upon her daughter Venkavva.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.8 and 9
would contend that respondents No.8 and 9 have
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
alienated the properties without being aware of the
interim order granted by this Court and there was no
intention to violate the interim order and to show their
bonafides, they have deposited entire sale consideration
amount before this Court. He would contend that in case
appellants/plaintiffs contention relating to the ownership
is not established then valid title be recognized in favour
of the purchasers from defendants No.8 and 9 and the
sale consideration amount deposited before this Court be
released in favour of defendants No.8 and 9.
8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the
bar and perused the record. The following points arises
for consideration:
(a) Whether Rangavva who was given a limited
estate under the Will dated 29.07.1955
acquired absolute right over the property by
operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu
Succession Act of 1956?
(b) Whether the appellants establish that
Rangavva has relinquished her claim over the
absolute ownership as she has not claimed any
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
title over the property during her life time and
she died as a limited owner of the property?
(c) Whether defendants No.8 and 9 establish that
they have sold the property in ignorance of the
interim order without there being any intention
to violate the interim order and that they are
entitled for sale consideration amount
deposited before this Court?
(d) Whether the appellants have made out a case
for production of certified copy of the Will
without complying the requirement to adduce
the secondary evidencel?
9. As far as issue No.1 before the Trial Court is concerned, it
is noticed that the said issue is related to the proof of Will
in favour of Rangavva and Sadashiv. Said Will is dated
29.07.1955. Though the original Will is not produced,
certified copy is produced. Attesting witnesses are not
examined on the premise that the attesting witnesses
were not alive when the evidence was recorded. It is
further stated that the person who could identify the
signature of the attesting witness and the testator have
been examined to prove the attestation.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
10. PW.2 who has been examined to prove attestation and
execution has identified the signature of the testator and
attestators.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would
contend that the Trial Court committed an error in
holding that the execution of the Will is proved without
there being proper explanation for non-production of the
original and for producing secondary evidence. And it is
also his contention that the testator could not have
identified the signature on the certified copy.
12. It is noticed from the records that defendants No.4 and 5
disputed the execution of Will in the written statement.
However, the said written statement is not accepted as it
is not filed within time. Nevertheless, an issue has been
framed relating to the proof of the Will.
13. It is also noticed that the original Will is not produced.
What is produced is the certified copy of a Xerox copy. It
is not forthcoming as to how the Xerox copy of the Will is
handed over to the Sub-Registrar where there is an
endorsement to say "C¸À°£ÀAvÉ £ÀPÀ®Ä".
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
14. It is also noticed from the said endorsement that the
certified copy which is produced before the Court is
certified after getting it Xeroxed. However, it is not
forthcoming whether it is Xeroxed from the original or
Xeroxed from some other copy. And it is not forthcoming
as to whether the original is lost or it is in the custody of
the defendants. Under these circumstances, the Trial
Court could not have given a finding relating to the proof
of Will without examining the following questions:
(a) Whether the Xerox copy which is produced before
the Court is copied from the original and compared
with the original?
(b) Whether a case is made out relating to admissibility
of the secondary evidence.
However, without examining all these aspects, the Trial
Court has given a finding that execution of the Will is
proved.
15. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that
the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court have to be set aside. If execution of the Will in
dispute is not proved then obviously Rangavva and
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
Venkavva would acquire title over the properties as class
one heirs.
16. It is noticed that both the parties have failed to place
proper pleadings in support of their contention which are
raised before this Court. To avoid technicalities, this
Court permits both the parties to amend the pleadings to
incorporate appropriate contentions and defences in their
respective pleadings before the trial Court.
17. The defendants who have not filed written statement are
also permitted to file the written statement in support of
their pleadings within 30 from the date of appearance
before the Trial Court.
18. Hence, without expressing anything on the merits of the
claim of either of the parties, the matter is remitted to
the Trial Court to frame the following issues to consider
the matter afresh:
(a) Whether the appellants have made out a case to
lead secondary evidence of the Will dated
29.07.1955?
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
(b) Whether the appellants establish the execution of
Will dated 29.07.1955?
(c) Whether the appellants establish that Rangavva did
not claim exclusive ownership over the properties
and has waived her claim of absolute estate
conferred under the Will?
(d) Whether the defendants establish that Rangavva
acquired absolute ownership of the property by
operation of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956?
19. The Trial Court shall also decide the question relating to
secondary evidence in the light of the law laid down in
the case of Shri.M.Ratnavarma Padival Vs.
Shri.Ratnavarma Ajri in RSA No.1792/2013 dated
24.08.2023 and any other judgment on the point.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that they
give up their claim relating to adverse possession and
bonafide purchase of the properties. Hence, those issues
framed by the Trial Court are eschewed.
21. If any other defence is raised, then the Trial Court shall
frame appropriate issue based on the subsequent
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
pleadings and thereafter shall decide the case of the
respective parties in accordance with law.
22. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that an
amount of Rs.18 lakhs is deposited before this Court and
the same is kept in Fixed Deposit in a Nationalised Bank,
pursuant to the Court order. It is further stated, that the
said amount is deposited, as the appellants contend that
the properties are sold by defendants No.8 and 9 in
violation of the interim order passed by this Court. And
defendants No.8 and 9 to substantiate their contention
that the properties are sold in ignorance of the Court
order without there being any intention to violate the
Court order have deposited the said amount before this
Court.
23. The trial shall also consider the contention relating to sale
in violation of the Court order and shall give appropriate
finding on it.
24. The amount shall be kept in the Court deposit and the
same shall be released subject to the final outcome of the
suit before the Trial Court.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16489
25. Hence the following:
ORDER
(a) The impugned judgment and decree dated
03.07.2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,
Mudhol, in O.S.No.409/2000 are set-aside.
The matter remitted to the Trial Court for fresh
consideration in the light of the observations
made above.
(b) Parties who are represented by their respective
counsel before this Court shall appear before
the Trial Court on 16.12.2024.
(c) For rest of the parties, the Trial Court shall
issue notice.
(d) In case, any of the parties are found to be
dead, the Trial Court shall issue notice to the
legal representatives on an application filed by
any of the parties and they shall be impleaded
as parties to the proceeding.
(e) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
gab - upto para 6
GVP - para 7 to end
