The court ruled that the validity of a Will under the Indian Succession Act requires strict compliance with execution standards, and civil courts lack jurisdiction over intestate succession matters.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri. George Philip, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. B.N. Prakash, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 and Sri. Fakirappa S. Shettar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.

2. Third defendant is the only appellant now, as defendants No.1 and 2 have transposed themselves as respondents in this appeal.

3. Third defendant is challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.17897/2005 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohal, Bangalore.

4. Operative portion of the Judgment and Decree reads as under:

The suit of the plaintiff decreed. The plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of her ½ th share in the suit schedule property.

Draw/partitioning decree accordingly.

5. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under;

5.1 Sri. Sebastian was owner of the suit property. Plaintiff and defendants are his children. He had a wife by name Jane Vardes. There was a will executed by Sri. Sebastian in the year 1990 and later on Sri. Sebastian and his wife together executed a Will on 03.04.1993 in respect of the suit property other movable properties of the couple.

5.2 Parents of the parties to the suit passed away and the suit for partition came to be filed by one of the daughters namely Mrs. Lucy, who is the first respondent in the appeal.

5.3 Three defendants are her siblings. Among them, defendants No.1 and 2 being her sisters and third defendant is the brother.

5.4 She contended that the Will said to have been executed by Sri. Sebastian and his wife is incorrect and sought for her share in the suit property.

5.5 Third defendant being the beneficiary under the will opposed the suit and so also the other defendants.

5.6 Learned trial judge raised following issues in the light of rival pleadings.

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property is the joint property of the plaintiffs and defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiffs is entitled for any share in the suit schedule property.

3. What decree or order?

5.7 In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and placed on record eight documents which are exhibited and marked as Exhibits P1 to P8 comprising of legal notice, acknowledgment, reply to Exhibit P1, Emails sent to the alleged witnesses to the Will, letter, R.P.A.D. cover and yet another letter.

5.8 As against the evidence placed on record by the Plaintiff, first defendant was examined as DW1 who is now transposed herself as a respondent No.4 before this Court (As such, her evidence if any, would not be of much avail for the appellant to advance the case of the appellant in this appeal).

5.9 One of the witnesses to the Will by name Sri. Joseph F. Rosaria is examined as DW2. On behalf of the defendants, as many as seventeen documents were placed on record, which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits D1 to D17, comprising of Letter Receipt dated 03.06.2005, Letter dated 03.06.2005, First Will executed by Sebastian, Last and final will executed by Sebastian and his wife, original NSC Certificates, Letter confirming the signature on the Will, Letter of the plaintiff’s mother, who was aware of the Will, Statement of dowry, letter from defendant's father to defendant No.1, Exhibits P11 and 12 comprising of passports 12, General Power of Attorney, Memorandum of Understanding, Khatha of the Property, Tax paid receipt.

5.10 Learned Trial Judge after hearing the arguments of the parties, decreed the suit as referred to supra.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, as stated supra, the appeal came to be filed by all the defe