The validity of a registered Will is upheld when it is unchallenged for decades and acted upon, reinforcing that delay in legal challenge can bar claims based on ownership.

JUDGMENT :

H. P. SANDESH, J.

1. This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction in O.S.No.177/2009 is that he is the absolute owner of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and also sought for the declaration that alleged Will dated 31.05.1972 executed by the grandfather of the plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of suit schedule properties are null and void and not binding to the plaintiff and also sought the mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over vacant possession of all ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and also issue direction to the Grama Panchayath and concerned authority to enter his name in the records. The specific contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property originally belongs to Dodda Halappa. The father of the plaintiff is the only son and he succeeded to all the properties of family of Dodda Halappa and also contend that all the properties are ancestral properties and they are inherited through main propositus Ningappa and grandfather of the plaintiff had not owned any self-acquired properties during his lifetime. It is also contended that schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties are ancestral properties among other ancestral properties in the family of plaintiff. The grandfather of plaintiff had no manner of individual right over the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties to dispose in any manner. Even though Will was executed in favour of defendant in respect of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and the same will not convey any right to the defendant. It is further contended that item Nos.1 and 4 of schedule ‘A’ property land and item No.3 of ‘B’ schedule property stands in the name of Dodda Halappa, who was the second son of Ningappa at the relevant point of time i.e., at the time of execution of the alleged Will on 31.05.1972, as such, the said Doda Halappa has no manner of right to execute the Will. It is contended that he came to know about the said Will in 2008 and immediately, he applied for the documents and filed the suit.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant appeared and filed written statement. He specifically took the contention that suit itself is not maintainable and the Will was executed on 31.05.1972 and in terms of the Will, defendant becomes the absolute owner of the property and also contend that even mutation entries are also recorded in the name of defendant subsequent to execution of the Will and the same was also not challenged by the father of the plaintiff during his lifetime and it is more than 30 year old registered document. The plaintiff has no right to challenge the said registered Will and plaintiff as successor of his father's property and when the father had not challenged the Will, this plaintiff cannot challenge the same.

5. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ property, whether the Will executed by the grandfather dated 31.05.1972 is null and void and whether the defendant proves that Will dated 31.05.1972 executed by the grandfather of the plaintiff is valid. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, particularly considering the recitals of the document Ex.D25, wherein grandfather specifically narrated and recited in the document that there was a partition between the Executant of the Will and his so