The limited interest of Muniyamma in the properties was not enlarged under Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, and the plaintiff failed to prove the sound disposing state of mind of Muniyamma at the time of executing the Will.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The appellant-plaintiff is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 1/4/2011 passed in OS No.198 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC at Mulbagal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, which was confirmed by the judgment dtd. 12/8/2014 passed in RA No.83 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kolar (itinerating at Mulbagal) (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for brevity).

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant herein as plaintiff filed OS No.198 of 2007 against the defendants for declaration of his title over the suit schedule properties and for perpetual injunction. It is contended by the plaintiff that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule properties as he acquired the same under the registered Will executed by Smt.Muniyamma, wife of late Hoovalli Munishami on 18/6/2004 which was registered on 23/6/2004. It is stated that the plaintiff is the grand son of the testator Muniyamma through her son K M Venkatappa. Muniyamma was residing in the house of plaintiff and it was the plaintiff and his father who looked after her, till her death. Muniyamma died on 14/7/2004.

4. It is stated that Muniyamma had cancelled the registered Will dtd. 22/9/1986 executed by her and her husband in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 by executing the registered cancellation deed dtd. 16/6/2004 which came to be registered on 23/6/2004. It is stated that the registered Will dtd. 18/6/2004 is the last testament executed by the testator Muniyamma and by virtue of the same, suit properties devolved on the plaintiff after her death. Since then, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The defendants are not having any right, title or interest over the suit properties. They started threatening to dispossess the plaintiff. In the meantime, plaintiff approached the Deputy Tahsildar, Byrakur for change of khata on the basis of registered Will, but since khata was not changed, plaintiff has approached the Civil Court seeking declaration of his title on the basis of the suit properties.

5. The schedule appended to the plaint describes 3 items of the properties i.e., (i) 10.04 acres of land in Sy.No.80, (ii) 4 acres of land in Sy.No.81/P2 situated at Kadenahalli village, Byrakur Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk and (iii) the house property situated at Kadenahalli village bearing K.No.67 measuring East to West 45 feet and North to South 81 feet.

6. On service of notice, defendant No.1 appeared before the Trial Court and filed written statement denying the contention of the plaintiff. However, the relationship between the parties is admitted. The contention taken by the plaintiff that Muniyamma died on 14/7/2004 is also admitted. It is contended that there is no cause of action for the suit. It is submitted by defendant No.1 that Hoovalli Munishami separated from his brother and started earning his livelihood by doing agricultural labour. He had no other source of income for his subsistence. He acquired the agricultural land and house properties from out of his hard earned money and in the meantime, he married Muniyamma. Therefore, some of the properties were purchased in the name of Muniyamma. Munishami and Muniyamma got 4 sons. The eldest being K M Venkatappa, the father of the plaintiff, the second son is K M Munivenkatappa - defendant No.1. The third son is K M Venkatarame Gowda is not made as party to the suit. The fourth son is K. M. Chinnappaiah, is arrayed as defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.7 and 8 are the sons of defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively.

7. It is contended that Hoovalli Munishami is the kartha of the family and he convened the meeting