IMPORTANT POINT
The propounder of a Will must prove its validity when disputed, as per Section 69 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

(E.S. Indiresh, J.)

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 03rd December, 2019 passed in Regular Appeal No.23 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Basavana Bagewadi (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 05th April, 2010 passed in Original Suit No.09 of 2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Basavana Bagewadi (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff came to the dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit schedule property, alleging that the defendants 2 and 3 are the son and daughter of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 is the daughter of the deceased Shankaramma and the suit schedule property belongs to said Shankaramma. It is stated in the plaint that the deceased Shankaramma died on 16th October, 1976 leaving behind the registered Will dated 23rd July, 1976 bequeathing the schedule property to the plaintiff and as such, the defendants interfered with the peaceful possession of the schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed Original Suit No.09 of 2000 before the Trial Court seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.

4. After service of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the existence of the Will dated 23rd July, 1976 said to have been executed by the deceased Shankaramma and accordingly, defendants sought for dismissal of the suit. The defendants have filed counter claim seeking possession of the suit schedule property stating that the defendant No.1 is the daughter of the deceased Shankaramma.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration.

6. In order to establish the case, plaintiff has examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and produced 21 documents as Exhibits P1 to P21. On the other hand, defendants have examined the defendant No.2 as DW1 and no documents were produced.

7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment dated 05th April, 2010, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the counter claim of the defendants. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred Regular Appeal No.23 of 2010 on the file of the First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 03rd December, 2019, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.09 of 2000. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

8. Heard Sri.D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri.Sanganabasava B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

9. Sri.D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff argued that, both the Courts below have ignored the fact that the deceased Shankarmma executed the registered Will bequeathing the property in question in favour of the plaintiff. So also, the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit on the sole ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove the Will in question. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

10. Per contra, Sri.Sanganabasava B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had acquired suit schedule property pursuant to the regi