The main legal point established in the judgment is that the widow's right to her husband's share in the property was limited due to the execution of the will, and the nomination of deposits did not give exclusive rights to the nominee.

The plaintiff in O.S.136/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2010. By referring to the parties with respect to their positions in the suit, the pleadings put in a nutshell are as follows:-

2. Plaintiff is the widow one Narayan Devaru Hegde, who died on 13.07.2006. The defendants 1 to 5 are her children. During the time when plaintiff’s husband was alive, because of lack of understanding between the members of the family, the 3rd defendant became separated by executing a release deed on 17.03.1989. On 08.03.1994, there took place a partition of the joint family properties through a registered partition deed and the defendants 1 and 2 got separated. It appears that a suit 12/1999 came to be filed by one of the members of the family and this suit was referred to Lok Adalath where the partition dated 08.03.1994 was cancel led and the defendants 1 to 3 readjusted their shares in the joint family. In the compromise, the plaint “A & C” schedule properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and her husband. “B” schedule property consists of certain deposits in various banks and financial institutions. The plaintiff stated that she had half share in the plaint schedule properties during the lifetime of her husband, and after his death, she became the absolute owner of the entire property. None of the defendants 1 to 5 has any right in the schedule property and since the defendants 1 to 5 asserted that they succeeded to the share of their father in the schedule property after his demise and that some of the defendants 1 to 5 stated that they would withdraw the deposits from the bank as they had been nominated, the plaintiff brought a suit seeking declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The plaintiff also sought an alternative relief to the effect that in case the court would come to the conclusion that the defendants 1 to 5 also have a share in the suit property, partition be effected to the extent of her 7/12th share and for its possession thereof.

3. The 1st defendant, in his written statement admitted the relationship and averments regarding the partition that had been effected in the past. But he took up a specific contention that his parents did not live separately in the house described in “C” schedule after the partition, rather they were living with him. He alleged that his mother i.e. the plaintiff had never been a good wife of his father. He denied that the plaintiff has absolute right over the deposits shown in “B” schedule and that she alone succeeded to the share of her father in respect of “A & C” schedule properties. He asserted that his father nominated him in respect of the deposits shown in “B” schedule of the plaint and that his father, on 15.03.2005 had executed a will bequeathing all his movable and immovable properties to him and thus, the plaintiff cannot claim declaration of her title or partition in the alternative. He alleged that the plaintiff was instigated by other defendants to institute the suit and the same has to be dismissed.

4. The 3rd and 5th defendants also filed their written statement admitting the earlier transactions of partition within the family. Although they admitted that their parents started living separately in “C” schedule property, they denied that entire “B” schedule property was given exclusively to their parents. They stated that the plaintiff had a half share in the entire suit property and that she did not become the absolute owner of the entire suit property after the death of her husband. They also denied that they interfered with plaintiff’s possession of the property given to her share and stated further that the plaintiff filed the suit only with an intention to knock of the entire deposits mentioned in “B” schedule. They