A registered Will's validity relies on proving the testator's mental capacity and proper execution, with courts deferring to concurrent factual findings by trial and appellate courts.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

1. Defendant No.3 in OS.No.220/2002 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') is impugning the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2006 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction, which was confirmed in RA.No.59/2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Sagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') vide judgment dated 21.04.2009 by dismissing the appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff filed the suit OS.No.220/2002 before the Trial Court against defendant Nos.1 to 10 seeking declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered Will dated 28.04.1995 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property and from dispossessing him.

4. The schedule attached to the plaint describes the garden land bearing No.88 of Benkatavalli village, Avinahalli Hobli, Sagar Taluk, measuring 17 guntas with the boundary stones. (herein after referred to as 'the schedule property'). It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 10 are the children of Manjappa of Benkatavalli Village and defendant No.5 is the wife of the brother of the plaintiff, who is no more.

5. It is contented that the schedule property belonged to Manjappa, the father of the plaintiff and defendants and it was his self-acquired property. He was the absolute owner in possession of the property. During his lifetime, he executed the Will dated 28.04.1995 registered on 29.04.1995 bequeathing it in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, he died on 01.01.1996. After death of his father, plaintiff by virtue of the Will, became the owner in possession of the schedule property.

6. He applied for change of khata but the revenue authority passed an order observing that the change of khata on the basis of the Will it is to be decided by the Civil Court. The defendants, who are the other children of late Manjappa, started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and started denying the right of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered Will and for permanent injunction.

7. Defendant No.3 has appeared before the Trial Court and filed written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff regarding execution of the Will by their father Majappa and none of the other defendants have contested the suit by filing the written statement.

8. It is contended that the day, on which, the Will stated to have been executed by deceased Manjappa, he was aged 97 years and was bedridden, as he was unable to move due to his old age and ill health. He was literally crawling to cover a short distance. His physical and mental health was not good. His hands were shaky and he was not in a position to talk.

9. It is also contented that the scribe of the Will is a good friend of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff conspired with the scribe and brought someone before the Sub-Registrar by impersonating Manjappa and got registered the Will. Therefore, it is the contention that Manjappa never came before the Sub-Register, nor he executed the Will as contented by the plaintiff.

10. It is contented that defendant No.3 is owning the garden land bearing