Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 1300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.
H.S. Kamakshi - Appellant
Versus
H.S. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. - Respondents
RSA No. 805 of 2015 (PAR)
Decided On : 11-10-2022
R. Gopal, Adv., for the Appellant; Anu Bhardwaj, Harikrishna S. Holla, Advs., for the Respondents
The burden of proof in establishing the validity of a Will, especially when surrounded by suspicious circumstances, and the application of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act in determining property rights.
Headnote:
Will Execution - Property Dispute - Hindu Succession Act - [Hindu Succession Act, Section 14]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the alleged execution of a Will by Nagavenamma in favor of the present appellant, which canceled her earlier Will. The property in question was claimed by multiple parties, leading to a suit for partition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to establish the execution of the Will dated 16.02.1989 due to suspicious circumstances surrounding its validity, including the timing of its appearance, the exclusion of natural heirs, and doubts about the testator's sound state of mind.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Will dated 16.02.1989 was proved in accordance with the law, and whether the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, particularly Section 14, which deals with property rights of a female Hindu. The court emphasized the burden on the propounder to prove the Will and considered the suspicious circumstances as grounds for disbelief.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs and concluding that the appellant failed to establish herself as the beneficiary under the Will dated 16.02.1989.
JUDGMENT
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In this second appeal, the 4th defendant in O.S.98/2004 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagar is questioning the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2012 decreeing the suit for partition and also the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2015 passed in R.A.108/2012 wherein the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree reserved above passed by the trial Court.
3. The dispute involved in this case relates to the alleged execution of Will in favour of the present appellant. The present appellant claims that her grandmother Nagavenamma executed the Will dated 16.02.1989 in her favour canceling her earlier Will dated 04.01.1989. The relationship of the parties is as under:
4. The property in question stood in the name of Nagavenamma who died on 07.03.1989. She is survived by four sons and one daughter. The fourth son H.R.Sathyanarayana died in 1995. The present appellant is the daughter of H.S.Sathyanarayana and granddaughter of Nagavenamma-the alleged testator.
5. The suit for partition is filed by two sons and wife of 3rd deceased son of Nagavenamma claiming partition and separate possession. All the class-I heirs are included in the said suit. The present appellant who is the defendant No. 4 in the said suit took a stand that the property devolved exclusively on her after the demise of Nagavenamma in terms of the Will dated 16.02.1989.
6. The first defendant in the said suit who is the grandson of Nagavenamma claimed right over the property on the basis of the alleged Will dated 04.01.1989. He filed a counter claim in the said suit. The counter claim is rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, the 1st defendant filed an appeal in RA No. 132/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sagar. The said appeal in R.A.132/2012 and the appeal filed by the 4th defendant Smt H S Kamakshi were clubbed together and decided by a common judgment dated 07.02.2015. R.A.132/2012 is dismissed holding that the alleged Will dated 04.01.1989 executed by Nagavenamma is not proved in accordance with law. There is no further challenge to the said judgment and decree dismissing R.A.132/2012.
7. Under these circumstances, the only question that needs to be answered in this case is, "Whether the Will dated 16.02.1989 alleged to have been executed by Nagavenamma is proved in accordance with law.
8. This Court vide order dated 16.02.2016 has admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law:
"A) Whether the Judgments and decrees passed by the courts below holding that the plaint "A" schedule property is the ancestral and joint family property of the parties, which has been purchased by Smt. Nagavenamma, the mother of the plaintiff and later granted by the Panchayat in favour of the said Nagavenamma is sustainable in law?
B) Whether the judgments and decrees of the courts below are not hit by the provisions of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act.
C) And to consider any other question of law which may arise for consideration while hearing the appeal.
9. Question (a) framed on 16.02.2016 is by reason of the findings of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court wherein it is held that the property in question is a joint family property.
10. This Court after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents is of the view that the property in question is the property of late Nagavenamma. Both the learned counsel fairly concede this point. Under such circumstances, the questions of law framed on 16.02.2016 do not arise for consideration and based on the contentions raised during the course of hearing, this Court is of the view that substantial question of law relating to the execution of the will dated 16.02.1989 is to be framed. Accordingly, the following substantial question of law is framed:
"Whether the appellant
