In matters of inheritance in joint family properties, ancestral status prevails unless a valid Will is presented; thus, equitable shares must be allocated accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. These Regular First Appeal, and the Cross Objections arise out of the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2018 passed in O.S.No.82/2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’ for short).

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Tribunal. The Appellants in RFA No.100531/2018 were defendant Nos.1 to 3, and respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and the other respondents were defendant Nos.4 to 7.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a partition separate possession regarding the suit schedule properties. It is contended that one Yallappa- the Plaintiffs grandfather was the original propositus. He had two sons by name Basappa and Ramappa. The Plaintiff is the daughter of the deceased Basappa. The deceased Ramappa had two sons, namely, Yallappa and Shankareppa-defendant No. 1. Defendant No.2 is wife of defendant No.1, and defendant No.3 is the son of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Yallappa died leaving behind defendant Nos.4 to 7 as his legal heirs. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. It is contended that Sy.No.17/3 was purchased out of the joint family nucleus in the name of defendant No.1 (Repeated) The Plaintiff and the defendants are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no partition is effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff demanded a partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

5. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious, suppressing the material facts. It is contended that Sy.No.17/3 was purchased by defendant No.1 out of his own income, and it is his self-acquired property. It is contended that the plaintiff’s father has ½ share in Sy.No.244/1, and he was the absolute owner of suit property bearing No.467, and he was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the above said two properties. Since, he has no male issues, he has bequeathed the above said properties in favour of defendant No.3 by executing a Will dated 17.03.2016 in the presence of the plaintiff, Suresh Basappa Belagavi, Dundayya Madivalayya Hiremath, and Bhimappa Kallappa Ganagi. The said Will was written by the bond writer and it was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bailhongal. Since the father of the plaintiff executed a Will in the presence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff knowing the above said facts, has signed the Will. The plaintiff’s father passed away on 25.05.2016 and after his demise, defendant No.3 filed an application to certify the name of defendant No.3 regarding the properties bequeathed under the Registered Will dated 17.03.2016. The revenue authorities have certified the name of defendant No.3 based on the Will executed by the father of the plaintiff. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.3.

6. Defendant No.7 filed a written statement admitting the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and all the defendants, wherein the plaintiff has got ½ share. In the remaining ½ share, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have 1/4^th share and defendant Nos.4 to