Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Kar) 374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
Smt. Chandra Prabha, D/o. Late M. Krishnappa @ Krishnamurthy, W/o. P. Varadarajan and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Smt. K. Sarojammal, W/o. Late M. Krishnappa @ Krishnamurthy and Ors. – Respondents
Regular First Appeal No.117 Of 2015 (PAR)
Decided On : 07-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri. Gangadharappa A.V., Adv.
For the Respondents: Sri. A. Subramanya Prasad, Adv., Sri. Chithappa, Adv.

The burden of proof for the validity of a Will lies with the propounders, who must meet legal requirements, including examining attesting witnesses, especially in the presence of suspicious circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Dispute over the validity of a Will - The plaintiff challenged the third Will executed by the testator, claiming it was contrary to his intention as expressed in the second Will. The trial court dismissed the suit, stating the plaintiff admitted the Will's execution. The appellate court found the trial court erred in placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff instead of the defendants, who failed to prove the Will's execution as required by law. (Paras 11, 12, 18, 39)

(B) Wills - Burden of proof - The party propounding a Will must prove its execution, especially when suspicious circumstances exist. The defendants did not examine any attesting witnesses, failing to meet the legal requirements for proving the Will. (Paras 20, 21, 36)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a daughter of the testator, contested the validity of the third Will, alleging it was executed under suspicious circumstances and contrary to the testator's intentions as expressed in earlier Wills. The trial court dismissed her suit, leading to this appeal.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the defendants did not meet their burden of proof regarding the Will's execution, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the property. The trial court's judgment was set aside.

Issues: The main issues were whether the defendants proved the Will's execution and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the property.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court ruled that the burden of proof lies with the defendants to establish the Will's validity, which they failed to do by not examining attesting witnesses. The trial court's error in shifting the burden to the plaintiff was significant.

Result: Appeal allowed; the trial court's judgment set aside, and the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the property.

JUDGMENT :

(Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.)

The appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2014 passed by XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, in O.S.No.3086/2005 thereby suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration, partition and mesne profits is dismissed.

2. Ranking of the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Plaint:

It is stated by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 – K.Sarojammal and defendant No.7 - K.Kaveri @ Kannambal are the wives of late M.Krishnappa @ M.Krishnamurthy. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons and defendant Nos.4 to 6 are the daughters of M.Krishnappa through his first wife - K. Sarojammal. Defendant Nos.8 and 9 are the sons and defendant Nos.10 and 11 are the daughters of M.Krishnappa through his second wife - Kaveri @ Kannambal. It is further case of the plaintiff that said M.Krishnappa had executed a Will dated 06.03.1996 and that is revoked subsequently by second Will dated 16.02.2001. In the first Will dated 06.03.1996 only the sons were bequeathed properties and after advent of amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, he has executed a second Will dated 16.02.2001 in favour of the sons and daughters of two wives. It is further contention of the plaintiff that he has cancelled the second Will dated 16.02.2001 and executed third Will dated 15.06.2001 bequeathing properties only to sons. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that the third Will executed is contrary to the intention of the testator. Therefore, the third Will is a created one and prepared by defendant No.8, who is an Advocate and he has played a dominant role in preparing the same. It does not have proof of intention of the testator M.Krishnappa but he managed to get execution of the disputed Will dated 15.06.2001 by duping the legitimate rights of daughters. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare that Will dated 15.06.2001 is not binding on the plaintiff and claimed for 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties and to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits.

Written Statement:

4. The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint except admitting the relationship. The defendant No.1 has stated in her written statement about the execution of three Wills by M.Krishnappa. Apart from the same, she has taken the contention that plaintiff has filed a false and frivolous suit and she has no share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, she prays to dismiss the suit.

4.1 The defendant No.2, who is the wife of second son Muniraju had filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint by the plaintiff and she also prays to dismiss the suit.

4.2 The defendant No.4 filed written statement admitting the plaint averments and prayed to decree the suit by granting 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties.

4.3 The defendant Nos.5 and 6 have adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No.4.

4.4 The defendant Nos.3, 7 and 9 have filed the written statement in the line of defendant No.1 and prays to dismiss the suit.

4.5 The defendant No.8 filed the written statement denying all the plaint averments and pleaded that Late M.Krishnappa had executed three Wills and the last Will is dated 15.06.2001, which was executed by M.Krishnappa and it is not having any suspicious circumstances. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. He has further stated that by executing a third Will dated 15.06.2001, M.Krishnappa had bequeathed the suit properties in favour of his sons and directed the beneficiary of the said Will to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.a. for a period of 5 years to daughters. Therefore, the daughters are also beneficiary under the said Will including the plaintiff. Therefore, the third Will executed by the said M.Krishnappa is genuine and the valid one. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit.

4.6 The defendant No.10 filed the written statemen