Karnataka High Court
Santhosha C A vs Smt Sujatha on 10 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
RSA No. 1290 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1290 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SANTHOSHA C.A.
S/O C.L. ANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST AND EMPLOYEE AT TOYOTA
KIRLOSKAR PVT. CO., BENGALURU
PERMANENT RESIDENT AT
K. CHATNAHALLI @ POST
AMRUTAPURA HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK-577 228
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY G.P.A. HOLDER
SMT. SUMA C.B. W/O C.L. ANANDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
Digitally signed K. CHATNAHALLI @ POST
by DEVIKA M AMRUTAPURA HOBLI
Location: HIGH TARIKERE TALUK-577 228
COURT OF CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANATHKUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUJATHA
W/O LATE SHADAKSHARI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
2. CHETHAN C.S.
S/O LATE SHADAKSHARI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
RSA No. 1290 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. SMT. SHRUTHI C.S.,
D/O LATE SHADAKSHARI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT DUGALPURA POST
KASBA HOBLI, TARIKERE
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 220.
4. PRAKASHA C.S.
S/O LATE SHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT K. CHATNAHALIL @ POST
AMRUTAPURA HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 220.
5. SHIVA KUMAR C.S.
S/O LATE SHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT DUGALPURA @ POST
KASBA HOBLI, TARIKERE
CHIKMAGALUR-577 228.
6. MRS. NIRMALA
W/O LATE C.L. SHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT DUGALPURA @ POST
KASBA HOBLI, TARIKERE
CHIKMAGALUR-577 228.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.54/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, TARIKERE, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
RSA No. 1290 of 2024
HC-KAR
DATED 08.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.246/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TARIKERE.
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 matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration,
permanent injunction and alterative relief of possession is that
the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are grand sons of late
C.C. Laxmanappa, S/o. Chikkariyappa. The said Laxmanappa
had five sons namely, C.L. Shekarappa, father of defendant
Nos.2 and 3, C.L. Shadakshari defendant No.1, Smt.
Rathnamma, C.L. Ananda father of plaintiff and C.L.
Thimmappa. Shekarappa pre-deceased Laxmanappa. After
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
HC-KAR
demise of Shekarappa, his legal heirs defendant Nos.2 to 4,
Laxmanappa and his remaining sons continued in joint family.
4. The plaintiff is working in a private company at
Bengaluru. As such, he is not in a position to appear regularly
before the Court. Hence, he has executed a GPA in favour of his
mother Smt. Suma and suit is filed by his mother on behalf of
the plaintiff. The suit schedule property is a joint family
property of plaintiff and defendants. The defendant Nos.1 and 2
along with other children of Laxmanappa filed a suit for
partition against Laxmanappa and his brother's son
C.M. Nagaraju in O.S.No.217/2010. The said suit has ended in
compromise on 13.10.2010. In the compromise, Laxmanappa
was allotted suit schedule property and from the date of
compromise in the suit, the joint family ceased and parties to
the suit got their shares in the properties. It is contented that
Laxmanappa became the absolute owner of the suit schedule
property by enjoying the same. The said Laxmanappa executed
Will in respect of the suit schedule property on 19.10.2011 in
favour of plaintiff. The said Will was registered on 20.10.2011.
The said Laxmanappa executed Will out of his free will and
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
HC-KAR
consent with sound state of mind and he lost his breath on
03.01.2012. After the death of Laxmanappa, the plaintiff has
applied for change of khatha of the suit schedule property
before the Tahsildar, Tarikere. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have
objected the same. The Tahsildar, Tarikere has passed an order
on 04.08.2014 rejecting the claim of the plaintiff. The
defendant Nos.1 and 2 have disputed the title of the plaintiff
and execution of the Will. The defendants on one or other
pretext are trying to dispossess the plaintiff and trying to pick
up quarrel and reap areca and coconut fruits from the suit
schedule property. The plaintiff and his GPA holder unable to
resist the act of the defendants, filed the suit for the relief of
declaration and permanent injunction.
5. The Court issued suit summons to the defendants,
same was served on them and they appeared before the Court
and filed the written statement. The defendant Nos.2 to 5
adopted the written statement of defendant No.1. In the
written statement, defendants have admitted the relationship
between themselves and plaintiff and filing of earlier suit is also
not disputed. It is further stated that suit schedule property has
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
HC-KAR
fallen to the share of said Laxmanappa, however physical
possession has not been delivered to him, as the suit schedule
property already been fallen to the share of Shekarappa,
defendant No.1, father of plaintiff and Thimmappa equally. It is
true that in terms of the compromise petition, final decree was
passed and Laxmanappa became the owner of the suit schedule
property and he lost his breath on 03.01.2012. However
contented that the very execution of the Will is disputed and
contend that it is created.
6. Having considered the averments made in the plaint
and written statement, allowed the parties to lead evidence
consequent upon framing of issues and having considered both
oral and documentary evidence, particularly extracting the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in paragraph Nos.31 and 32,
discussion was made in paragraph No.33 in coming to the
conclusion that Will is surrounded with suspicious
circumstances and not accepted the case of plaintiff and
answered the issues as 'negative' and dismissed the suit.
7. Being agreed by the judgment and decree, an
appeal is filed in R.A.No.54/2021. The First Appellate Court also
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
HC-KAR
having considered the grounds which have been urged in the
appeal, formulated the point whether the Trial Court is justified
in holding that execution of the Will deed is surrounded by
suspicious circumstances and it requires interference and
whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit for
permanent injunction as well. The First Appellate Court
considering both oral and documentary evidence and on
reassessing both evidence and material available on record
answered point Nos.1 and 2 as 'affirmative' holding that Trial
Court rightly dismissed the suit doubting the very Will and
dismissed the appeal giving the reasons in paragraph No.19,
wherein evidence of witnesses has been extracted and in detail
discussion was made in paragraph Nos.20, 22, 23, 24 and also
taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment and
comes to the conclusion in paragraph No.31 that Trial Court
rightly comes to the conclusion that Will is surrounded with
suspicious circumstances and not committed any error and
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
vehemently contend that the Trial Court and the First Appellate
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
HC-KAR
Court have not read the evidence available on record in proper
perspective and only considered portion of the evidence and
entire evidence was not considered. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that proving of Will is also similar to
proving of other documents. The counsel would vehemently
contend that Will is a registered document and the same is not
surrounded with any suspicious circumstances.
9. The counsel also in support of his argument relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal
No.5921/2015 dated 21.07.2025 in the case of Metpalli
Lasum bai (Since Dead) and others vs. Metapalli Muthaih
(D) by Lrs. and brought to notice of this Court paragraph
No.9, wherein discussion was made with regard to registered
document of Will is concerned. The counsel brought to notice of
this Court that Will is a registered document and thus there is a
presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The Trial Court
accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence led
before it. As the Will is a registered document, the burden
would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof, who
would be defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
HC-KAR
was not executed in the manner as alleged or that there were
suspicious circumstances which made the same doubtful. The
genuineness of the Will is also beyond doubt because it not
only confers the right and title over a part of the land owned by
the Testator, M. Rajanna to the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, but it also
grants a lion's share of the property to the defendant-Muthaiah
and brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.10 and 11.
10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and also the reasoning of the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court, no doubt the Will is a registered Will, the law is
also very clear with regard to proving of the Will and the person
who propounded the Will has to prove the same that the
document came into existence without suspicious
circumstances. The Trial Court while considering the claim of
the plaintiff, since the plaintiff claims that Will was executed by
the person, who is aged about 90 years i.e., Laxmanappa and
also the admission is very clear that he was suffering from
illness and was unable to understand the facts. The counsel
also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.30, wherein
discussion was made that D.W.1 has not placed any evidence
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
HC-KAR
which shows that Will was obtained by plaintiff with force and
forgery, but the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 proves the
suspicious circumstance regarding execution of the Will by the
testator Laxmanappa. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is
extracted, particularly the evidence of P.W.2 and the evidence
of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is contrary. The Trial Court in paragraph
No.33 taken note of date of death of the testator i.e.,
03.01.2012 and also the Will was executed on 19.10.2011
within a span of 2 months 14 days before his death and also
taken note of admission and the persons, who were present.
Though, P.W.1 claims that he came to know about the very
existence of the Will through the attesting witnesses, but
attesting witness evidence is contrary. Apart from that, even
family members were also present at the time of execution of
the Will. Having taken note of all these factors into
consideration, in paragraph No.33, comes to the conclusion
that Will came into existence under suspicious circumstances.
11. The First Appellate Court also in detail discussed the
same in paragraph No.19 and extracted the evidence of
witnesses and in paragraph No.20, taken note of age of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
HC-KAR
testator i.e., 90 years old at the time of execution of the Will
and P.W.1 also categorically admitted that testator stopped
making transactions well prior to 6 months prior to his death
and also taken note of the fact that document came into
existence within a span of 2 months of the death of the
testator. In paragraph Nos.23 and 24, in detail discussed both
very execution of document and also the evidence and
considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also the
principles laid down in the judgment, comes to the conclusion
that Will deed is registered, no sanctity shall be attached to it
as per the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment as
well as the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and
the propounder, the appellant herein failed to remove the
suspicion by adducing cogent evidence. Even in the absence of
the defendants' evidence with regard to the forgery or other
evidence, the person, who propounded the Will has to remove
any suspicious with regard to the document is concerned and
the law is also settled to that effect.
12. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant relies upon judgment of the Apex Court in passed in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
HC-KAR
Civil Appeal No.5921/2015 dated 21.07.2025 in the case of
Metpalli Lasum bai (Since Dead) and others vs. Metapalli
Muthaih (D) by Lrs., the Apex Court while discussing in
paragraph No.9 taken note of the registered Will and the Trial
Court made an observation that Will is accepted. But, in the
case on hand, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court not accepted the case of the plaintiff and the very
execution of the Will, since the same is surrounded with
suspicious circumstance and sound state of mind of the testator
and the very presence of attesting witness. The attesting
witness has also put his signature on the instruction of one of
the son of the beneficiary of the Will and all these factors were
taken note of by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second
appeal and frame any substantial question of law, since both
the factual aspects and the question of law is considered by the
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and the
appellant has not made out any ground to invoke Section 100
of CPC.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45514
HC-KAR
13. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
