The court affirmed that a Will's validity must be proved beyond doubt, especially when surrounded by suspicious circumstances involving mental competency and inheritance rights of legal heirs.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2013 passed in R.A.No.50/2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC at Tarikere and the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2008 passed in O.S.No.6/1998 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and Additional JMFC at Tarikere.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, respondent No.1 was plaintiff No.1 and respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(c) were the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff No.2.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration to declare that they are the owners to an extent of half share in the suit schedule property and also to declare that the Will dated 02.09.1993 executed in favour of defendant No.1 is not binding on them and for the grant of a permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, one Gangaiah is the Propositor of the family of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The husband of plaintiff No.1 and husband of defendant No.1 i.e., respondent No.2 are the sons of late Gangaiah. Late Gangaiah, during his lifetime, acquired the suit schedule property in 1978-79 and the Government has also issued saguvali chit in favour of Gangaiah. The plaintiffs and the defendants have constituted a Hindu Undivided joint family, and are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The late Gangaiah sold his ancestral property and out of the said income, he developed the suit property and it became the joint family property. It is contended that late Gangaiah died on 21.09.1994 and defendant No.1 is claiming ownership over the suit schedule property based on the Will dated 02.09.1993 alleged to have been executed by the late Gangaiah in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendants on 20.07.1997 demanding their half share in the suit schedule property. However, the defendants did not do so. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for a declaration to declare that the alleged Will executed by late Gangaiah in favour of defendant No.1 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit.

3.1. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that late Gangaiah was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he had no ancestral property. Hence, the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the late Gangaiah. He bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 under a registered Will dated 02.09.1993. After the demise of Gangaiah, defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff had a knowledge regarding the execution of the alleged Will by late Gangaiah in favour of defendant No.1 and late Gangaiah was in sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. It is also contended that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

1) Whether plaintiffs proves the relationship pleaded?

2) Whether plaintiffs prove that suit property is ancestral property?

3) Whether plaintiffs prove that deceased Gangaiah was not in sound mine before his death?

4) Whether defendant prove that Gangaiah has executed Will dated 02.09.1993 out of free will?

5) Whether suit is barred by time?

6) What decree or order?

3.3. The plaintif