The court established that the validity of a Will must be proven in accordance with statutory requirements, and any transfer of property exceeding a certain value must be registered to convey valid title.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellants/plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the judgment of first Appellate Court-Fast Track Court, Sirsi, in R.A.No.415/2009 dtd. 16/6/2010, preferred this appeal.

2. Parties to the appeal are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The factual matrix leading to the case of plaintiffs can be stated in nutshell to the effect that propositus Shivayya @ Shivanna Basanna Chaluvadi and his wife Guttemma died on 25/12/1990 and 26/6/1993 respectively. Plaintiffs are their daughters and they have a brother by name Hanumantappa Chaluvadi (disputed by plaintiffs). Occupancy rights of the suit property was granted to their father Shivanna which is evidenced under the Mutation Entry No.2066 dtd. 14/7/1981. Plaintiffs being daughters of Shivanna are claiming declaration and consequential relief of injunction with respect to suit property on the basis of registered Will dtd. 12/12/1990 executed by their father Shivanna. The plaintiffs right from the date of acquiring right over the suit property are in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the same. One Hanumantappa Chaluvadi who was residing with their father Shivanna got entered his name in the records without notice to the plaintiffs and said entries are not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants being the wife and children of deceased Hanumantappa Chaluvadi started asserting their right over the suit property. Therefore, plaintiffs were constrained to file suit for the relief claimed in suit.

4. In response to the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their learned counsel and filed written statement contending that Shivanna partitioned suit property in favour of plaintiffs evidenced under M.E.No.2449 dtd. 2/4/1987 without retaining any share for himself. Defendant No.5 is the son of Lakshmi, who was daughter of Shivanna. The husband of 1st defendant Hanumantappa Chaluvadi was not residing in Banavasi and was working as driver and residing at Hubballi. Thereafter, plaintiffs along with husband of Lakshmi have relinquished their right in favour of Hanumantappa Chaluvadi evidenced under M.E.No.2496 dtd. 22/4/1988. The brother of plaintiffs - Hanumantappa Chaluvadi was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of plaintiffs relinquishing their rights in his favour. On the death of Hanumantappa Chaluvadi dtd. 4/7/1999, defendants being the wife and children of Hanumantappa Chaluvadi have succeeded to the property evidenced under M.E.No.3009. The relinquishment of rights by plaintiffs was not questioned from 1988 till 1999 i.e., for more than 11 years and the plaintiffs have no any right over the suit property. Therefore, on these grounds prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Defendant No.5 has filed separate written statement contending that he is unaware about Shivanna partitioning the properties in favour of plaintiffs and execution of registered Will dtd. 12/12/1990 in favour of plaintiffs. It is admitted that after coming to know about the revenue entries, same were questioned before the Assistant Commissioner, Sirsi. It is further admitted that plaintiffs are in possession and cultivation of the suit property. The husband of 1st defendant and other defendants were never in possession and cultivation of the suit property.

6. The trail Court has framed the issues and the plaintiffs to prove their case relied on the evidence of PWs-1 to 4 and documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. The defendants have relied on the evidence of DW-1 and documents Ex.D.1 to D.5. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence has dismissed the suit of plaintiffs. Appellants/plaintiffs have challenged the said judgment and decree of trial Court before the first Appellate Court on the file of Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Sirsi, under R.A.No.415/2009. The first Appellate Court by its judgment dtd. 16/6/2010 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of trial Court.

7. Appellants/plaintiffs are ch