IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the due execution and attestation of a Will, the burden of proof in establishing property as joint family, and the rejection of claims based on suspicious circumstances without disinterested and satisfactory evidence.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2018 passed in R.A.No.2/2015 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant-plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property was originally belonged to her grandfather by name Nunnuru Honnegowda who had acquired the same under registered sale deed dated 01.05.1974. Thereafter, her grandfather executed a registered Will in her favour on 22.09.2010 and her grandfather died on 28.02.2011. It is contended that after the death of her grandfather, she became an absolute owner of the suit schedule property as per the Will. The defendant being her paternal uncle acquired wrongful possession of the suit schedule property by illegal means and forcibly put up construction of a building and that the defendant has refused to accept her title and handover the possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration, possession and for mandatory injunction.

4. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that the suit schedule property though was purchased in the name of his father Honnegowda, the same has been joint family property and as such his father had no absolute right to bequeath the same in favour of the plaintiff by executing any Will and that he has raised 40 coconut trees and put up pump-shed and that he has been in a possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since his childhood and that his father has suffered from paralytic stroke on his right side of the body and he was not able to speak and was not having good eye sight and hearing since from 16 years prior to his death and that the father of the plaintiff by inducing his father Honnegowda to taking him to the hospital might have taken to the Sub-Registrar office and fraudulently got executed the Will to grab the suit schedule property and that he has put up the construction about eight years back and hence, the suit is not maintainable.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the Issues Nos.1 and 2 shifting the burden on the plaintiff to prove that whether she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and whether the defendant has illegally constructed a building in the suit schedule property without her consent and the Trial Court has framed Issue No.3 shifting the burden on the defendant to prove that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property. The plaintiff in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW1 and two attesting witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P24. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and also examined three more witnesses as DW2 to DW4 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D40. The Trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary evidence answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant has illegally constructed the building in the said property without her consent and answered Issue No.3 as negative in coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule property is not an ancestral property as contended by the defendant and granted the relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she is entitled for the possession of the same and directed the defendant to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property within one month and also directed the defendant to get the building situated in the suit schedule property demolished by way of mandatory injunction.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.2/201