The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the nature of the suit schedule properties as separate/self-acquired rather than ancestral, and the erroneous application of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.

1. This plaintiff's appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 10024/1998 passed by the XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her 1/12th share in the suit schedule properties as against her claim for equal ¼ share.

2. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the brothers and defendant no. 3 is the sister of the plaintiff. The subject matter of the suit are lands bearing Sy. No. 57/7B1 measuring 5 guntas and Sy. No. 56/1 measuring 26 guntas situated at Hongasandra Village limits, Bangalore South Taluk.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

That the suit schedule properties are the self- acquired properties of her father B. Nanjappa. He died on 08.07.1997. Nanjappa executed will dated 04.06.1997 bequeathing the suit properties to her and the defendants in equal shares. Though the said documents are styled as "settlement deeds" but in substance, they are the wills. During the life time of Nanjappa, 1st defendant filed O.S. No. 363/1997 against Nanjappa and the 2nd defendant for partition and separate possession of the suit properties and two other lands. After the death of her father, defendants 1 and 2 instead of bringing the daughters on record as his heirs, fraudulently compromised the suit depriving the daughters of their share. Therefore, the compromise decree in O.S. No. 363/1997 does not bind her. If at all the will is not held proved, she be awarded ¼ share in the suit properties.

4. Defendants 1 and 2 filed the written statement. Their defence is as follows:

(i) It is denied that the suit properties are the self- acquired properties of their father Nanjappa. They deny the execution of the will. The suit properties are their ancestral properties. Therefore, Nanjappa was not competent to execute the will. The daughters are not entitled to the share because their marriages were performed spending huge amount. Nanjappa has alienated certain properties which are not included in the suit. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of those properties. The Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

5. 2nd defendant contended that the father has executed a will on 04.06.1997 and he is agreeable for partition as per the said will. 3rd defendant filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues:

ISSUES:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule Properties are self acquired property of her father B. Nanjappa?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that Nanjappa has settled suit schedule properties equality on plaintiff and defendants under Will dated 04.06.1997?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the share in suit properties? If so, what is the extent of her share and in which properties?

4. Whether defendants prove that suit properties are ancestral properties?

5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable for non inclusion of Sy. No. 56/16 and Sy. No. 44/1 of Kodli village?

6. Whether the court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit?

7. What order or decree?"

ADDITIONAL ISSUES:

"1. Whether plaintiff proves that the first and second defendant played fraud and obtained a compromise decree in OS No. 363/97 and the same is not binding on the plaintiff?

2. Whether the defendants prove that the relief of declaration sought by plaintiff is barred by time?"

7. In support of the case of the plaintiff, parties adduced evidence. On plaintiff's side, PWs 1 to 3 are examined and Ex.P.1 to P.14 are marked. On defendants side, DWs 1 to 2 are examined and Exs.D1 and D2 are marked.

8. The trial Court after hearing the parties, partly decreed the suit holding that:

(1) Plaintiff's father has executed - Exs.5 and 6 and though they are termed as settlement deed, they are the wills of Nanjappa;

(2) The suit properties are the ancestral properties of Nanjappa. Therefore, he was no