A Will executed by a tenant is invalid if it contravenes Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which restricts transfers to legal heirs only within 15 years of land grant.

CAV JUDGMENT

RSA No.100326/2016 is filed by the defendant Nos.2 to 5, challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2016 passed in RA No.43/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2013 passed in OS No.84/1991 on the file of Additional Civil Judge, Sirsi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

2. RSA No.100458/2020 is filed by the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4, challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2020 passed in RA No.5011/2016 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar, sitting at Sirsi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016 passed in OS No.132/1994 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court in OS No.84/1991.

Facts in RSA No.100326/2016:

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the original propositus – Venkatramana had four children namely, Ganapati (died without leaving any issues), Narasimha (defendant No.1), Ramachandra (died as bachelor) and Mahabaleshwar (plaintiff). It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the original propositus - Venkatramana had five immovable properties namely, land bearing Sy.No.48/2 measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.62 measuring 38 guntas 8 annas, Sy.No.53/1 measuring 30 guntas 8 annas, Sy.No.61/2 measuring 10 guntas and Sy.No.56/2 measuring 4 guntas and all the immovable properties are situate at Kottigehalli village in Sirsi Taluk.

4.1. It is also stated that, the defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of defendant No.1. There was a registered partition in the joint family properties consisting of children of late Venkatramana and as such, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Ramachandra Hegde (third son of Venkatramana). It is also stated that, the Ramachandra Hegde had health ailments and as such, the plaintiff was looking after the said Ramachandra Hegde and also cultivate the suit schedule properties belonging to the said Ramachandra Hegde. It is further stated that, the said Ramachandra Hegde died on 16.04.1990 without leaving behind any legal heirs as he was bachelor and therefore, the plaintiff and defendant No.1, being the Class-I heirs of deceased Ramachandra Hegde and accordingly, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are entitled for half share each in the suit schedule properties.

4.2. It is further averred in the plaint that, the plaintiff came to know that, the defendant Nos.2 to 5 got mutated the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property based on the Will dated 14.08.1989 said to have been executed by deceased Ramachandra Hegde. Hence, it is the case of the plaintiff that, the suit schedule properties are the tenanted properties of late Ramachandra and therefore, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are entitled for equal share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiff has filed OS No.84/1991 against the defendants seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of partition in respect of the suit schedule properties.

5. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendants that, Ramachandra got the suit schedule property as per registered partition dated 21.08.1989 and was separately enjoying the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the deceased Ramachandra was suffering from age old ailments and further executed Will dated 14.08.1989 bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant Nos.2 to 5 and therefore, the defendant Nos.2 to 5 are entitled for suit s