The appellate court held that the plaintiffs proved their title through a valid Will, emphasizing proper adherence to evidentiary laws, and criticized the trial court's dismissal based on erroneous evaluations.

JUDGMENT :

K.MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. This RSA is filed seeking to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 20.11.2017 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Malavalli in R.A.No.35/2012,(‘the first appellate Court’ for short) with exemplary cost and restore the Judgment and Decree dated 05.07.2001 in O.S.No.9/1987, on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) at Malavalli (‘the trial Court’ for short).

2. The appellants herein are the LRs of defendant No.1 before the trial Court and respondents before the first appellate Court. Respondents herein are the plaintiffs and appellants before the Courts below.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.51/6 measuring 04 guntas, and plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of lands bearing Sy.No.136 measuring 01 acre 24 guntas and Sy.No.135/3 measuring 03 guntas, situated at Megalapura Village, Malavalli Taluk. The suit schedule properties are the self- acquired properties of one Inoru @ Shivanna s/o Rudrappa of Megalapura Village, who was in possession and enjoyment thereof till his death. The plaintiffs derived title over the suit schedule properties under a registered Will dated 07.02.1983 executed by the said Inoru @ Shivanna in a sound and disposing state of mind, voluntarily and of his own free will, before the Sub-Registrar, Malavalli. Under the said Will, the properties were bequeathed in favour of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 with a direction to perform his obsequies and last rites and thereafter enjoy the properties for their livelihood. The testator had no issues and had become a saint after his wife, namely defendant No.1, deserted him and left Megalapura Village about 30 to 40 years prior.

4. The plaintiffs submitted that they were close relatives of the deceased Inoru @ Shivanna and had been assisting him in cultivation of the suit lands and in his day- to-day affairs during his lifetime. After his death, in terms of the recitals of the Will dated 07.02.1983, the plaintiffs performed the obsequies and last ceremonies of the deceased and thereafter continued cultivation of the suit schedule properties by raising crops as absolute owners in peaceful possession and enjoyment. The plaintiffs assert that no other person has any right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties and that the testator had full authority to deal with the same. The defendant No.1/wife of the Inoru @ Shivanna, having deserted the deceased long back and having lived separately for about 30 to 35 years, has no subsisting claim over the properties.

5. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiffs made an application before Tahsildar/defendant No.2 for change of khata and RTC entries in their names, which was registered as RRT No.878/83-84. However, defendant No.2 failed to conduct the enquiry in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. On 27.05.1983, statements were improperly recorded by a clerk of the Taluk Office, and despite objections by plaintiff No.2 regarding the absence of his advocate, he was compelled to give his statement and was cross-examined. Thereafter, defendant No.2 dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiffs’ and ordered mutation in favour of defendant No.1, despite recording a finding that the Will was executed in favour of the plaintiffs and that they were in possession. Aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in R.Mis.No.37/83 before the Assistant Commissioner/ defendant No.3, Mandya. The same was dismissed by defendant No.3 without