Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2001
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
SRI MANCHAIAH S/O LATE KULAVADI JAVARAIAH SINCE DEAD RERPRESENTED BY HIS LRS – Appellant
Versus
SRI ANDANI S/O LATE KULAVADI JAVARAIAH SINCE DEAD ON 06.01.2020 – Respondent
RSA NO. 541 OF 2006 (PAR) | R.S.A NO. 649 OF 2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P M SIDDAMALLAPPA
For the Respondents: SRI.V SRINIVAS
Wills must adhere to specific statutory formalities to be valid; proper mental capacity of the testator is critical for testamentary dispositions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act - Section 63(c) read with Section 68 - Testamentary disposition challenge - Testamentary documents must adhere to formalities to prevent fraud and ensure clarity in bequests - Evidence established that testator was in sound mind and did not execute Wills under undue influence. (Paras 23-27)
(B) Misappreciation of evidence - Appellate Court’s findings reversed due to improper assessment; sufficient evidence indicated that the testator was capable of making testamentary dispositions and that the plaintiff suppressed evidence. (Paras 29-30)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought partition of property claiming they were self-acquired by the deceased testator, while defendants claimed valid Wills bequeathing properties under specific conditions. Disputed Wills were produced as evidence.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the Wills valid, while the appellate court overturned this based on perceived suspicious circumstances. The trial court's ruling was subsequently reinstated.
Issues: Whether the appellate court misappreciated evidence regarding the validity of the Wills and nature of the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the Wills were valid based on comprehensive assessments, discrediting the appeal due to insufficient foundation, affirming the trial court's findings.
Result: Appeals allowed; trial court's decision affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of partition and inheritance claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments against the validity of the wills presented. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's analysis on the authenticity of the wills. (Para 20 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. testator's intent and will execution clarity. (Para 29) |
| 5. final ruling affirming trial court's judgment. (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT
These two captioned second appeals are filed by defendant Nos.5 to 8 and defendant Nos.9 and 10. RSA.No.541/2006 is filed by the legal heirs of defendant No.2 who are asserting right in respect of item No.2 questioning the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, whereas RSA.No.649/2006 is filed by defendant Nos.5 to 8 who are the children of defendant No.1 questioning the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court in reversing the decree of the trial Court and granting share to the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The family tree of the parties is as under:
4. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiff is the eldest son of one Kulavadi Javaraiah who had three sons and two daughters. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession. One Kulavadi Javaraiah who was the propositus died on 27.02.1989 leaving behind plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff claims that suit schedule properties were self acquired properties of late Kulavadi Javaraiah who was in Government service. It is further contended that there was no division of properties during the lifetime of plaintiff’s father. It is also stated that plaintiff’s father suffered a paralytic stroke and he was not in a sound disposal state of mind. The plaintiff in the plaint also apprehended that defendants have set up some documents and therefore, specifically denied that his father has executed any document thereby disposing of his self acquired properties. The plaintiff claimed that his father died intestate and that he is in joint possession along with defendants and hence, filed the present suit seeking relief of partition.
5. The defendants, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and admitted that the suit properties are self acquired properties of Kulavadi Javaraiah. The defendants on the contrary claimed that Kulavadi Javaraiah during his lifetime while he was in sound disposing state of mind has made a testamentary disposition thereby bequeathing item Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 8 and defendant Nos.9 and 10. The defendant Nos.5 to 8 claimed that Kulavadi Javaraiah has bequeathed item Nos.1 and 3 under registered Will dated 10.11.1983 while defendant Nos.9 and 10 claimed that Kulavadi Javaraiah has bequeathed item No.2 under Will dated 08.02.1983 which is at the earliest point of time and in the very said Will, item Nos.1 and 3 were bequeathed to defendant Nos.5 to 8. The defendants refuting the allegations, however, specifically pleaded that Kulavadi Javaraiah suffered paralytic stroke only about 1½ years prior to his death and therefore, as on the date of making a testamentary arrangement which was 10 years prior to his death, he was perfectly healthy and was in a sound disposal state of mind and therefore, defendants claimed that they have acquired valid right and title pursuant to testamentary arrangement made by Kulavadi Javaraiah. The defendants have also specifically contended that plaintiff has deliberately not included the properties given to him by his father and therefore, contended that suit is bad for non- inclusion of all properties and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
6. The plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claim have led in oral and documentary evidence. The defendants by way of rebuttal evidence produced both the Wills. The registered Will set up by defendant Nos.5 to 8 dated 10.11.1983 was marked as Ex.D-1, while Will set up by defendant Nos.9 and 10 dated 08.02.1983 was marked as E
