A will that disinherits legal heirs can be deemed invalid if executed under suspicious circumstances, supporting principles of joint family property rights.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession, specifically pleaded that the plaintiff along with defendant Nos.1 to 6 constituted the joint family and scheduled properties are ancestral properties. The defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 took the contention that defendant No.1 separated from the joint family and also considering the written statement filed by defendant No.5, additional issue also framed that whether the 5^th defendant proved that Gowramma had executed the registered Will dated 21.07.1992 jointly in favour of Narasegowda and the 5^th defendant in respect of some of the properties as contended in the written statement and also whether the 5^th defendant proves that the sale proceeds of the crops grown in the properties fallen to him under the Will dated 21.07.1992 and his own earnings, he has purchased the suit schedule Item No.11 of the property and whether it is a self-acquired property and also considering the defence of the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6, it is contended that 1^st defendant has sold the suit schedule Item No.2 property in favour of 2^nd defendant for family necessity, whether defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 proves that suit schedule Item No.4 to 7, 9 and 10 properties are the self-acquired properties of the 1^st defendant and suit schedule Item No.8 is the streedhana property of Boramma, whether defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 prove that the 2^nd defendant is living separately by enjoying the properties acquired under the registered gift deed dated 12.12.1963 and whether defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 prove that the 2^nd defendant has sold the suit Item No.8 to 10 properties and the lands bearing Sy.No.41/3A, 41/2 and 75/2 as averred in the written statement and also whether the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 prove that the 1^st defendant has executed the registered Will dated 29.08.1988 as contended in the written statement.

3. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence. Having considered the evidence available on record, answered the Issue No.1 and 2 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that they constitute the joint family and properties are the ancestral properties and also answered the other Issue Nos.3 and 4 as negative. However, answered the Issue No.5 as affirmative that there is a cause of action and additional Issues Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 framed on different dates were also answered as negative and additional Issue No.4 dated 12.01.2018 answered in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that property was already sold i.e., defendant No.2 in respect of Item Nos.8 to 10 and answered other additional Issue No.5 and 6 as negative and comes to the conclusion that Will which was propounded is surrounded with suspicious circumstances and even though the document is registered and examined the witness, attesting witness, but, document clearly discloses that Will came into existence in a suspicious circumstances that has been discussed in paragraph Nos.43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 while answering Issue No.6 dated 12.01.2018 and also taken note of admittedly the properties sold by the 2^nd defendant are acquired by him under a registered gift deed dated 12.12.1963 executed by Narasegowda who is the brother of the 1^st defendant. Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.25 are the certified copies of the said gift deed and also admitted fact that the said properties gifted by Narasegowda in favour of defendant No.2 are acquired by him under the registered partition deed dated 03.01.1957. The D.W.1 also admitted in