The court reaffirmed that a will must be proved according to Sections 63(c) and 68 of the Indian Succession Act and Indian Evidence Act, and Section 90 does not apply, ensuring strict adherence to evidentiary requirements.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Uma, J.

The legal representatives of the original plaintiff in OS No.457 of 1992 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Sira (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short), are impugning the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2009 passed in RA No.205 of 2005 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Sira (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for short), allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1999 passed by the Trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of his title over suit schedule property and for permanent injunction.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the original plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant. It was initially numbered OS No.12 of 1992, which was re-numbered as OS No.457 of 1992. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the property morefully described in the schedule i.e., land bearing Sy.No.32/2 measuring 14.10 guntas situated at Holakallu Village, Gowdagere Hobli, Sira Taluk with the boundaries mentioned therein was the ancestral property of Sri M R Boothaiah and Smt Lakkamma Bandappa along with Sy.Nos.129/3, 135/3, 129/2, 6/3 of Mosarakunte Village.

4. It is contended by the plaintiff that one Bandappa, the father of Lakkamma adopted one M Rangaiah and executed a Will dated 25.01.1956 out of love and affection bequeathing the schedule properties in his name. Thus, M Rangaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. He died about 15 years back earlier to filing the suit. After death of M Rangaiah, his son Boothaiah came in possession and enjoyment of the properties. Lakkamma, the daughter of Bandappa was given in marriage and she was residing at Adivala Village for morethan 40 years. She had no manner of right, title or interest over the schedule property. The plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property from Boothaiah for a valuable consideration under the registered sale deed dated 29.12.1987 and he came in possession of the same. The plaintiff started paying the land revenue and developed the land. Lakkamma - the married daughter of Bandappa started raising dispute and claimed the property by filing an application before Tahsildar to mutate her name in the revenue records. She managed to mutate her name in the revenue records in collusion with the Tahsildar vide order dated 08.10.1991. The plaintiff challenged the said mutation entry before the Assistant Commissioner, which was pending consideration at the time of filing the suit. It is contended by the plaintiff that the said Lakkamma has fraudulently sold the schedule property in favour of the defendant even though she was not having any manner of right, title or interest. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title over the schedule property and for permanent injunction.

5. The defendant has appeared before the Trial Court and filed his written statement denying the contention taken by the plaintiff. It is denied that Bandappa had acquired interest in the ancestral properties or that he adopted his brother's son Rangaiah and that after death of Rangaiah, the property exclusively devolved on Boothaiah and the said Boothaiah sold the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. It is specifically denied that Bandappa executed a Will dated 25.01.1956 in favour of Rangaiah and he was in possession of the property or that after the death of Rangaiah, his son Boothaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule p