The party propounding a Will must prove its execution and compliance with statutory requirements, including addressing any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

This appeal is filed by defendants No.1 to 6, challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2017, passed in O.S.No.102/2009, by the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), thereby, the suit filed for declaration and possession is decreed by declaring that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit properties mentioned in the Will dated 04.03.2006.

2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Lankeppanavar is the original propositus who had two sons namely, Satteppa and Hanamanthappa. Defendants are representing branch of Satteppa. One Tippawwa is wife of Hanamanthappa. Hanamanthappa and Tippawwa had no issues. After death of Lankeppanavar, Satteppa and Hanamanthappa have got divided the suit properties, half share each. After death of Hanamanthappa, the relationship of Tippawwa and Satteppa’s children got strained. Therefore, Tippawwa filed a suit in O.S.No.67/1993 seeking partition to the extent of her half share. The said suit came to be decreed on 30.11.1996. Thus, Tippawwa has become owner of half share as she was inherited from her husband- Hanamanthappa. Since, Hanamanthappa and Tippawwa had no issues, Tippawwa after death of her husband Hanamanthappa was under care and protection of her elder brother in Mudalagi. Therefore, the said Tippawwa during her lifetime had bequeathed the properties which are fallen to her share, to the plaintiff who is her nephew by way of registered Will. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff has become owner of suit properties by virtue of Will dated 04.03.2006.

4. The defendants have filed written statement and denied all the averments in the plaint. The defendants No.1 to 6 have taken pleadings in the written statement that Tippawwa was residing in Mudalagi village and there is no occasion for her to go to Ramdurga and execute Will and got registered at Ramdurga Sub-Registrar office. It is pleadings of defendants No.1 to 6 that Tippawwa had executed a Will on 23.08.2003 which is prior to the alleged Will dated 04.03.2006 and bequeathed the property in favour of defendant No.7. Therefore, pleaded that the alleged Will dated 04.03.2006 is created and concocted one. Therefore, suspected execution of the Will by Tippawwa in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit and also taken pleadings that if Will is not proved, then, according to law of succession, defendants are entitled to properties held by Tippawwa. On all these pleadings, prays to dismiss the suit.

5. Defendant No.7 filed the written statement and admitted relationship stated by the plaintiff in the plaint. Defendant No.7 admitted that Tippawwa executed Will in favour of plaintiff. The other averments are denied by defendant No.7.

6. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following:

ISSUES

i) Whether the plaintiff proves that Smt.Tippawwa had executed a registered will dated 04.03.2006 in respect of suit properties in favour of the plaintiff, while Smt.Tippawwa was in sound disposing state of mind?

ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that Smt.Tippawwa cancelled an earlier Will dated 23.08.2003 executed by her in favour of defendant No.7?

iii) Whether the defendant No.7 proves that the Will dated 23.08.2003 executed by Smt.Tippawwa in respect of the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.7 is the last Will?

iv) Whether the defendant No.7 proves that the Will dated 04.03.2006 propounded by the plaintiff is fabricated and concocted document?

v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?

vi) What decree/order?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

i) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the plaintiff has not valued the subject matter of the suit property?

ii) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the Court Fee paid by the