The defendant No.1 is in appeal.

P. Ganesh Kamath instituted a suit against Vinayak Pai and

M. Muralidhar Prabhu seeking for a decree of partition and to

declare that he was entitled to 1/3rd share in property bearing

R.S.No.347, TS No.424 measuring 10 cents of converted land in

Kasba Bazar Village.

3.

P. Ganesh Kamath contended that the suit property was

owned by K. Panduranga Nayak, who had executed a registered

Will on 12.09.2011 whereunder he had bequeathed the suit

property in favour of himself, Vinayak Pai and M. Muralidhar

Prabhu jointly. It was stated that K. Panduranga Nayak died on

11.06.2014 and on his death, the suit property devolved on all the

three legatees and P.Ganesh Kamath was entitled to inherited

1/3rd share.

4.

He stated that he was in joint possession of the property and

since it was found difficult to manage the property jointly, he had

- 3 -

intimated his inability to continue as the co-owner and had

requested for a partition by meets and bounds.

5.

He also contended that certain vested interests were falsely

representing that they had an absolute right over the property and

were setting up a title hostile to that of the plaintiff and therefore he

had been constrained to issue a paper publication on 05.08.2014

warning the general public not to deal with the property since it

belonged to him and the defendants jointly.

6.

He stated that he had also issued a legal notice dated

08.08.2014 to Vinayak Pai and M.Muralidhar Prabhu demanding

his share and in response, Vinayak Pai had given a false and

frivolous reply. It was stated that in view of this reply, though M.

Muralidhar Prabhu had supported the partition, he was constrained

to seek for partition.

7.

Vinayak Pai entered appearance and contested the suit by

filing a written statement. He stated that the suit property was

initially belonging to Rukuma Bai wife of K.Panduranga Nayak, she

having acquired it under a Sale Deed dated 08.09.1969. He stated

that Rukuma Bai had executed the Will dated 10.08.2006 in favour

- 4 -

of her husband i.e., K.Panduranga Nayak and on her death on

25.10.2010, K.Panduranga Nayak had become the absolute owner

of the suit property.

8.

He stated that K. Panduranga Nayak had thereafter executed

a registered Settlement Deed dated 20.11.2012 settling the

property in his favour and he had thus became the absolute owner

of the said property. It was stated that in view of the Settlement

Deed executed by K. Panduranga Nayak during his lifetime, the

question of the Will having come into effect on his death would not

arise at all. He denied the assertion that the suit property was

liable to be partitioned.

9.

M. Muralidhar Prabhu also entered appearance and filed the

written statement. He however supported the case of P. Ganesh

Kamath and requested that the suit be decreed as prayed for.

10.

The Trial Court framed, in all, six issues.

11.

The first issue was as to whether P. Ganesh Kamath had

proved the execution of the Will and the second issue was as to

whether he had succeeded to the said property along with Vinayak

- 5 -

Pai and M. Muralidhar Prabhu on the death of K. Panduranga

Nayak and the third issue was as to whether the plaintiff was

entitled to 1/3rd share.

12.

The fourth issue that had been framed was as to whether

Vinayak Pai had acquired the suit properties under the Settlement

Deed dated 20.11.2012.

13.

In support of his case, P.Ganesh Kamath examined himself

as PW1 and also got five other witnesses examined. He also got

marked in evidence 32 documents.

14.

On behalf of M. Muralidhar Prabhu, he got himself examined

as DW1 and also got examined two other witnesses and in all

produced 67 documents.

15.

The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence adduced

before it came to the conclusion that P. Ganesh Kamath had

proved the execution of the Will dated 12.09.2011 and it also came

to the conclusion that the execution of the Settlement Deed dated

20.11.2012 in favour of Vinayak Pai was