Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. Sandesh, J.
Santhosha C.A., S/o C.L. Ananda - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sujatha, W/o Late Shadakshari – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No.1290 of 2024 (DEC/INJ)
Decided On : 10-11-2025
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Succession and Wills
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Standard of proof - The person propounding the Will must prove its existence free from suspicious circumstances; failure to remove doubts leads to rejection of Will. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration regarding ownership of property bequeathed via a disputed Will executed by his grandfather, which defendants contested. The grandfather was alleged to have been of unsound mind when executing the Will.
Findings of Court:
Both Trial and First Appellate Courts dismissed the suit, concluding that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances and was deemed invalid, upholding the importance of sound mental state and proper witnessing in will execution.
Issues: Whether the execution of the Will was valid and whether the doubts surrounding it were satisfactorily addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts ruled that the execution of a Will must be proved beyond suspicion, particularly considering the testator's age and health at time of execution, along with the evidence of witnesses.
Result: Regular second appeal is dismissed.
For the Appellant :Sri. Sanathkumar Shetty K., Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 13) |
| 2. joint family property and disputes. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's findings on possession and will. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. suspicious circumstances surrounding will execution. (Para 7 , 11) |
| 5. arguments regarding evidence and will validity. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
H.P. SANDESH, J.
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 the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and alterative relief of possession is that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are grand sons of late C.C. Laxmanappa, S/o. Chikkariyappa. The said Laxmanappa had five sons namely, C.L. Shekarappa, father of defendant Nos.2 and 3, C.L. Shadakshari defendant No.1, Smt. Rathnamma, C.L. Ananda father of plaintiff and C.L. Thimmappa. Shekarappa pre-deceased Laxmanappa. After demise of Shekarappa, his legal heirs defendant Nos.2 to 4, Laxmanappa and his remaining sons continued in joint family.
4. The plaintiff is working in a private company at Bengaluru. As such, he is not in a position to appear regularly before the Court. Hence, he has executed a GPA in favour of his mother Smt. Suma and suit is filed by his mother on behalf of the plaintiff. The suit schedule property is a joint family property of plaintiff and defendants. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 along with other children of Laxmanappa filed a suit for partition against Laxmanappa and his brother's son C.M. Nagaraju in O.S.No.217/2010. The said suit has ended in compromise on 13.10.2010. In the compromise, Laxmanappa was allotted suit schedule property and from the date of compromise in the suit, the joint family ceased and parties to the suit got their shares in the properties. It is contented that Laxmanappa became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by enjoying the same. The said Laxmanappa executed Will in respect of the suit schedule property on 19.10.2011 in favour of plaintiff. The said Will was registered on 20.10.2011. The said Laxmanappa executed Will out of his free will and consent with sound state of mind and he lost his breath on 03.01.2012. After the death of Laxmanappa, the plaintiff has applied for change of khatha of the suit schedule property before the Tahsildar, Tarikere. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have objected the same. The Tahsildar, Tarikere has passed an order on 04.08.2014 rejecting the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have disputed the title of the plaintiff and execution of the Will. The defendants on one or other pretext are trying to dispossess the plaintiff and trying to pick up quarrel and reap areca and coconut fruits from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and his GPA holder unable to resist the act of the defendants, filed the suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.
5. The Court issued suit summons to the defendants, same was served on them and they appeared before the Court and filed the written statement. The defendant Nos.2 to 5 adopted the written statement of defendant No.1. In the written statement, defendants have admitted the relationship between themselves and plaintiff and filing of earlier suit is also not disputed. It is further stated that suit schedule property has fallen to the share of said Laxmanappa, however physical possession has not been delivered to him, as the suit schedule property already been fallen to the share of Shekarappa, defendant No.1, father of plaintiff and Thimmappa equally. It is true that in terms of the compromise petition, final decree was passed and Laxmanappa became the owner of the suit schedule property and he lost his breath on 03.01.2012. However contented that the very execution of the Will is disputed and contend that it is created.
6. Having considered the averments made in t
