Back
2024 Supreme(Kar) 1277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.
Smt. Paramma, D/o. Ningamma And Shivrudrappa – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Mahadevamma, W/o. Shivareddappa and Ors. – Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 200206 of 2019 (PAR/DEC)
Decided On : 25-09-2024
For the Appellant :Sri Shravan Kumar Math, Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri Krupa Sagar Patil, Advocate, Sri A.R. Taranath, Advocate, Sri Chaitanya Kumar C.M., Advocate.
Exclusion of a natural heir from a Will is not inherently suspicious; valid evidence must support claims of invalidity due to testamentary capacity.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 92 - Family Law - Partition and inheritance - The plaintiff’s suit for partition granted in part, awarding a 2/14th share in certain properties while dismissing the claim for others - The court upheld the validity of registered Gift Deeds and Wills challenged by the plaintiff, as duly executed and proven by evidence - The court emphasized that exclusion of a natural heir is not, by itself, a suspicious circumstance that warrants the invalidation of Wills. (Paras 6, 26, 39)
(B) Wills - Proof and Execution - The court ruled that registered Wills must be proven by evidence and that any alleged lack of testamentary capacity must be supported by substantive evidence, not mere allegations. (Paras 27, 32)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a share of the ancestral property, claiming the execution of Wills by her mother was invalid due to her alleged ill health and lack of mental capacity; the defendants countered with evidence supporting the validity of the Wills executed in favor of two grandchildren.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found that all Wills and the Gift Deed were duly executed and valid, dismissing the suit regarding items covered by these documents.
Issues: 1. Whether the properties covered under the Wills are joint family properties? 2. Did the appellant establish that the Trial Court's findings on the Wills’ proof were erroneous?
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that exclusion from inheritance does not automatically invalidate a Will and emphasized the necessity of sound state of mind for execution not being disproven solely by claims of illness.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. partial decree in partition case. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. defendants contest plaintiff's claim. (Para 5 , 10 , 20) |
| 3. trial court's findings on wills. (Para 7 , 12 , 26) |
| 4. arguments challenging the validity of wills. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. court upholds trial court's ruling. (Para 31 , 39 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.
This regular first appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S.No.13/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Shahapur. Plaintiff’s suit for partition and separate possession is decreed in part. The plaintiff is awarded 2/14th share in item No.1 and 2 of Schedule-A and all properties in Schedule-B. Suit is dismissed in respect of items No.3 to 9 of ‘A’ Schedule properties. The 2/14th share is awarded in respect of items No.1, 2 of Schedule-A and entire ‘B’ Schedule properties.
2. This appeal is filed claiming share in all the properties.
3. The plaintiff claims that Basvantraya S/o Bhimappa Karkalli was the propositus. He had a son by name Shivareddappa. The plaintiff claims that Ningamma is the first wife of Shivareddappa and according to the plaintiff, said Ningamma had three daughters namely, Bassamma, Paramma and Mallamma. The plaintiff is Paramma. According to the plaintiff, Bassamma died before the institution of the suit and her two children Shivkumar and Ashwini are arrayed as defendants No.6 and 7 in the suit. Defendant No.5-Mallamma is the sister of the plaintiff.
4. One Mahadevamma is also arrayed as party to the proceeding and she is defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, Mahadevamma is the second wife of Shivareddappa and their marriage is void. The plaintiff also claims that Mahadevamma has three children namely, Sugamma, Kasturamma and Shashikala. Those three children of Mahadevamma were arrayed as defendants No.2 to 4.
5. Defendants No.2 and 8 contested the suit. They primarily contended that Basvantraya S/o Bhimappa Karkalli executed a registered Gift Deed on 28.11.1977 in respect of item No.9 property. It is the further defence of defendants No.2 and 8 that Ningmma executed three registered Wills. The first Will is of the year 2009 and it is in respect of item No.3 in Schedule-A to the extent of 2 acres in favour of Mallamma. One more Will was executed in the year 2009 in respect of item No.3 to the extent of 3 acres 6 guntas in favour of Shivkumar. The third Will was executed in the year 2010 in respect of item No.5 measuring of 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of Ashwini. Thus, the said defendants contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to share in the properties covered by the registered Gift Deed as well as the registered Wills referred to above.
6. The Trial Court has given a finding that all the registered Wills are duly proved by the defendants. The Trial Court also held that the registered Gift Deed dated 28.11.1977 is proved. Since the registered Gift Deed and the Wills are held to be proved, the claim of the plaintiff to have a share in those properties covered by the registered Gift Deed and registered Wills is denied.
7. The plaintiff had sought a declaration that the Will dated 19.01.2009, registered at document No.11 and 12/2008-09, Will dated 13.08.2010 registered at document No.11/2010-11 are not binding on the plaintiff.
8. The admitted factual position would reveal that one Basavanthraya was the propositus of the family and he died in the year 1986. He had a son by name Shivareddappa. The plaintiff claims Ningamma was Shiveredreppa’s first wife. However, defendant No.1 Mahadevamma claims that she is the first wife of Shivareddappa.
9. Ningamma died leaving behind three daughters namely Bassamma, Paramma and Mallamma. Bassamma died leaving behind two children namely, Shivkumar and Ashwini. Mahadevamma–defendant No.1 had three daughters namely Sugmma, Kasthuramma and Shashikala.
10. The plaintiff–Paramma-the daughter of Ningamma, also claimed share challenging the sale deed executed by defendant No.1–Mahadevamma in favour of defendant No.8 in respect of item No.9 of the
