B.C. Chandrashekar Aradhya vs President
2025 Latest Caselaw 10574 Kant

Karnataka High Court

B.C. Chandrashekar Aradhya vs President on 24 November, 2025

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                          -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:48494
                                                      RSA No. 860 of 2025


                HC-KAR




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                       BEFORE

                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.860 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

               BETWEEN:

                     B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR ARADHYA,
                     SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

               1.    SMT. G.R. RUDRANAMMA,
                     W/O. LATE B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR ARADHYA,
                     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
                     R/AT HEREMATA, KOTE, BANAVARA,
                     ARSIKERE TALUK-573 103.

               2.    SMT. ROOPA B.C.,
                     W/O. GURUPRASAD K.S.,
                     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                     R/AT NO.354, PIPELINE ROAD,
                     MAGADI MAIN ROAD, ANJANANAGAR,
Digitally signed     BENGALURU-560 091.
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 3.    SMT. MALA B.C.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA            W/O. RUDRESHA B,
                     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
                     R/O. FLAT NO.202,
                     STANFORD, OMKAR HOMES,
                     BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
                     NEAR INCH FURNITURES,
                     BENGALURU-560 099.

               4.    SRI. SIDDESHWARA SWAMY B.C.,
                     S/O. LATE B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR ARADHYA,
                     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
                     R/AT NO.129/12, NAGARAJ BUILDING,
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:48494
                                      RSA No. 860 of 2025


HC-KAR




     MULLUR, SARJAPURA ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560 035.
                                             ...APPELLANTS

             (BY SRI. MUNIYAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.   PRESIDENT,
     GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
     BANAVARA,
     ARSIKERE TALUK-573 103.

2.   P.D.O.,
     BANAVARA,
     ARSIKERE TALUK-573 103.

3.   SMT. SUSHILAMMA,
     W/O. LATE B.R. SADASHIVASWAMY,
     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
     R/O. HEREMATTA,
     BANAVARA, KOTE,
     ARSIKERE TALUK-573 103.

4.   SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR,
     S/O. LATE B.R.SADASHIVASWAMY,
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
     R/O. HEREMATTA,
     BANAVARA, KOTE,
     ARSIKERE TALUK-573 103.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.03.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, ARSIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2024
PASSED IN O.S.NO.390/2016 ON THE FILE OF C/C. II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -3-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:48494
                                           RSA No. 860 of 2025


HC-KAR




CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                       ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel for the appellants.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent

finding.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs

before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs are the absolute

owners of the suit schedule properties as per the Will dated

20.01.2009 executed by Smt. Bramarambha. On the basis of

the Will, the plaintiff applied for change of khatha and at that

time, husband of defendant No.3 and father of defendant No.4

Sri Sadashivaswamy B.R., filed objections stating that it comes

under the Civil Court. It is contended that defendant Nos.3 and

4 tried to construct the building without obtaining the licence

and tried to knock off the property of the plaintiff and the same

was intimated to defendant Nos.1 and 2 and later defendant

Nos.1 and 2 stopped the construction and they are made as

formal parties in the above suit.

NC: 2025:KHC:48494

HC-KAR

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.3

and 4 appeared and filed the written statement contending that

defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the public servants, the Government

is a necessary party, as such the suit is not maintainable. The

averments made in paragraph No.2 of the plaint is admitted. It

is true that after the partition, they are enjoying the properties

of their respective shares. It is false to state that the

grandfather Veerabhadraswamy had given his share to

Bramarambha and the sons of Veerabhadraswamy have not

given consent for the partition dated 25.07.1962. It is further

stated that the plaintiff has created the alleged Will in order to

knock off the suit schedule property. The alleged Will is

created, concocted and got-up by the plaintiff for the purpose

of this suit. The said Bramarambha had never executed any

Will as stated in the plaint. The plaintiff colluded and created

the witnesses Bikkalamdhar and notary also by creating

document. The alleged Will is not genuine and denied the total

execution of the document. The plaintiff is not the resident of

Banavara and wrong address has been given by the plaintiff

and hence, the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious.

NC: 2025:KHC:48494

HC-KAR

5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of

the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead

evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, particularly taken note

of the mandatory requirement of Section 68 of the Indian

Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and

also taken note of the Will, which is marked as Ex.P.11 and the

stamp paper was purchased at Belur and address of

Bramarambha is mentioned as Banavara Kote. The Trial Court

taken note of the evidence of P.W.2 and extracted the same in

paragraph No.17 and extracted the evidence of the scribe

P.W.3 in paragraph No.18 and extracted the evidence of P.W.1

in paragraph No.19 and comes to the conclusion that the Will,

which is propounded by the plaintiff is surrounded with

suspicious circumstances and there is no any corroboration.

There are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and

P.W.3 with regard to the place of execution of the document

and also place of residence and also with regard to stamp

paper. P.W.2 is not aware of the exact stamp value, but he

gave the details of Rs.20/- stamp paper. On perusal of Ex.P.11,

it is prepared on the stamp paper of Rs.100/- and according to

NC: 2025:KHC:48494

HC-KAR

the witnesses, testator is the resident of Banavara, but stamp

paper was purchased at Belur and created the document at

Belur and hence, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff fails

to prove the very execution of the Will.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of

the Trial Court, an appeal is filed and the First Appellate Court

having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated

the point whether the Trial Court committed an error in

dismissing the suit disbelieving the document of Ex.P.11 Will.

The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, particularly in

paragraph No.20, taken note of the document Ex.P.10 and so

also subsequent document Ex.P.13 and evidence of P.W.1 was

taken note of in paragraph No.21 and evidence of P.W.2 and

P.W.3 in paragraph Nos.22 and 23. Having re-assessed the

material on record, comes to the conclusion that Bramarambha

never resided with the plaintiff and she was never under the

care and custody of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not

provided any treatment to Bramarambha when she met with an

accident and it clearly creates doubt about the genuineness of

the due execution of the Will as pleaded by the plaintiff and the

NC: 2025:KHC:48494

HC-KAR

Trial Court rightly taken note of all these materials while

dismissing the suit. Though defendant Nos.3 and 4 have not

produced any oral and documentary evidence, but burden is on

the plaintiff to prove his case and to prove the due execution of

the Will from which he has acquired the suit properties and

comes to the conclusion that the very execution of the Will is

not proved and answered point No.1 in the affirmative and

point No.2 in the negative that the Trial Court has not

committed any error.

7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the

present second appeal is filed before this Court.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants before this Court is that both the Courts have

committed an error in appreciating both oral and documentary

evidence placed on record. The Trial Court has committed an

error in coming to the conclusion that the contents of the Will

has not been proved by the appellants despite the fact that

P.W.2 and P.W.3 were examined. The learned counsel contend

that the very appreciation of the evidence is not based on the

NC: 2025:KHC:48494

HC-KAR

material on record and hence, this Court has to admit the

appeal and frame substantial question of law.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and considering the reasonings given by the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court, it is the plea of the plaintiff that the Will

was executed in his favour and in order to prove the case, the

plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined two

witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.2 is the attesting witness,

P.W.3 is the scribe and P.W.1 is the one who propounded the

Will. The Trial Court having re-assessed the evidence in

paragraph Nos.17, 18 and 19, comes to the conclusion that the

evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 does not inspire the

confidence of the Court. The very execution of the Will is

doubtful, the place of abode of the testator is different from the

place where the Will was prepared and the stamp paper is

purchased at Belur and the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is

contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 and the testator is the

resident of Banavara and not Belur. All these factors were

taken note of by the Trial Court.