A holographic will executed by the Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family can effectively settle family property, altering its status from ancestral to settled, provided the will is validly executed and reflects the testator's intention.

JUDGMENT

C.M.JOSHI, J. - This Regular First Appeal is filed by the defendants under Sec. 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dtd. 24/10/2008 passed in O.S.No.94/2002 by the learned XXII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and for declaration that Wills are not binding on him came to be decreed.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court in the original suit.

3. The suit schedule property is the premises bearing No.9, 4th Main, 8th Cross, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18, measuring 30 x 50 feet with constructed area of 10 x 50 feet.

4. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is as below: The plaintiff and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the brothers. Defendant No.1-Anasuya Bai is their mother and one B.M. Rama Rao was the husband of defendant No.1 and father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3. He had ancestral properties. The suit schedule property had fallen to the share of their father B.M. Rama Rao under a registered partition deed dtd. 18/3/1953 entered into between B.M.Rama Rao, his father and brothers.

5. The plaintiff contended that he and the defendants were coparceners of the hindu undivided family and B.M.Rama Rao, was the Kartha of the family. He further contended that even though the plaintiff and defendants are residing separately for their convenience and to eke out their lively hood at different places, there was no partition in the joint family properties. It is stated that the plaintiff was serving in Forest Department as a Ranger at different places till his retirement.

6. The plaintiff also contended that the deceased B.M. Rama Rao was working in KEB as Assistant Engineer and out of his self earnings he had purchased the property at Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. The said property was sold by B.M.Rama Rao, during his life time for a valuable consideration and he distributed the money among the plaintiff and the defendants according to his wish and that major portion of sale proceeds was paid to the defendants. After the death of B.M.Rama Rao, the plaintiff and defendants succeeded to the suit schedule property as joint owners. The plaintiff further contended that defendant No.3 with fraudulent intention filed an application to the Assistant Revenue Officer of the Bangalore City Corporation, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru, for effecting transfer of the khatha of the suit property to his name on the basis of alleged unregistered Wills dtd. 2/2/1996 and 21/2/1996 executed by B.M. Rama Rao, which were not valid in the eye of law. The plaintiff, having come to know about the act of the defendant No.3 enquired further and came to know that on the basis of a joint affidavit of no objection, the defendant No.3 had got his name entered in the khatha. It was alleged that the signature of the plaintiff was forged and as such, an objection was filed to the Bangalore City Corporation. It was stated that the defendants made request for a settlement through their relatives but thereafter, they did not come forward for any settlement and as such, he was constrained to file a criminal complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate on 20/12/2000 in PCR No.731/2000. In the meanwhile, the objections filed to the Bangalore City Corporation went in vain. Thereafter, again, the defendants came up with a proposal for partition in respect of the suit schedule property and accordingly, the plaintiff had also agreed for receiving the value of his 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and as such made necessary preparations by valuing the suit schedule property through a registered valuer. The defendants again resiled from the compromise proposal and changed their minds. The plaintiff also contended that the suit schedule property was all along in the joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3; with an intention of grabbing entire property, they are trying t