Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 19876
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
RENUKA D/O. VISHWANATH PADTHARE – Appellant
Versus
RAOSAHEB BALAKRISHNA PADTHARE SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 3088 OF 2011 (PAR)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. G.B.SHASTRY, SRI.CHETAN MUNNOLI
For the Respondents: SRI. SHREEVATSA S HEDGE, SRI.B.C.PATTAR
The failure to establish the due execution of the Will resulted in reaffirmation of joint family property status, with emphasis on the burden of proof resting on the propounder of the Will.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 96 - Appeal against partition suit - The plaintiffs sought partition and possession of joint family properties but were opposed by the defendants who claimed it was self-acquired property, supported by a disputed Will. The trial court found the Will unproven, ruling the properties as joint family holdings. (Paras 6, 7, 16)
(B) Wills - Execution and proof - The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies upon the propounder of the Will. The defendants failed to establish the due execution of the Will, leading to a dismissal of their claims regarding self-acquisition. (Paras 10, 16)
Facts of the case:
This appeal is against a trial court judgment determining the status of property as joint family or self-acquired, following a partition suit initiated by family members. The deceased had executed a Will bequeathing properties, contested by the plaintiffs.
Findings of Court:
The trial court held that the defendants did not satisfactorily prove the Will was executed and dismissed the suit for partition, recognizing joint family status of the properties.
Issues: The court addressed the legitimacy of the Will and the joint family status of the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the evidence presented by the defendants regarding the Will was insufficient to prove its execution and that the properties were joint family assets.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs claim legitimate share in property. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendants contest the existence of joint family properties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court reviews the trial's handling of wills. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. discrepancies in witness testimony raise doubts on the will's validity. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 16) |
| 5. defendants fail to convincingly prove due execution of the will. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Defendant Nos.1B, 1C, 1E, 2, 20, and 21 are currently in appeal, and the suit was initiated by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.
2. The plaint averments in brief are as follows:
The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are full brothers, and defendant Nos.3 to 5 are sisters. The propositus, namely Balkrishna Padthare, with the help of plaintiff No.1, started manufacturing trunks and opened a manufacturing unit. Plaintiff No.2, who had grown up, was assisting his brother, plaintiff No.1, and his father in the business. Due to the hard and sincere work of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and their father, the business expanded. Out of the income from the business, an open site in land bearing R.S. No.278 of Shahapur Belagavi, now numbered as CTS No.5313 to 5318, was purchased by the plaintiffs, and their father in the name of the propositus as he was the family manager in the year 1962 for a sum of Rs.4,000/-. Subsequently, with joint family funds, they constructed a building on the purchased open site, where they currently manufacture trunks. Defendant No.1 is the third son of the deceased propositus, and defendant No.2 is the younger son. The plaintiffs and their father arranged the marriage of their three sisters, and the suit properties are joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 5 are in joint possession of the suit properties. It was further averred that the propositus, during his lifetime, had acquired 13 shares of Belagavi Industrial Bank and four shares of the Pioneer Urban Bank, Belagavi. He deposited money in the Belagavi Industrial Cooperative Bank Ltd., SPM Road, Belagavi, and had bank accounts in both banks.The defendants have not come forward to effect the partition, hence the present suit is filed
3. The defendants entered appearance, and defendant Nos.2, 20, and 21 filed a written statement contending that the genealogy furnished by the plaintiff is incomplete. They admitted the relationship between the parties, and stated that the propositus was a native of Jambagi Village in Vijayapura District. He had no source of income, so he came to Belagavi, and opened a small unit for manufacturing trunks in his individual capacity. It was specifically denied that the plaintiffs were assisting the propositus in business activities. It was further contended that the suit properties were his self- acquired properties, and the plaintiffs were not involved in their father's business.
4. The deceased Balkrishna executed a Will dated 18.01.1996, bequeathing some portion of the properties to defendant No.1, his wife Mangala, and their son Nithin. Some properties were bequeathed to defendant No.2, his wife, and their son Shahaji. Balkrishna also bequeathed one big block to two sons of plaintiff No.1 and made provisions for the maintenance of his daughter-in-law Sushila in the Will. In the Will, CTS No.5312, an open place, was to be divided into two parts. Half portion towards the northern side was to go to Vishwanath, Nagala, and Nithin after his death, and the other half towards the southern side was to go to Shashikant, Sheela, and Nithin after his death. The rest of the western half portion was to go to either Vishwanath or Shashikant, whoever paid Rs.20,000/- to each of their three sisters.
5. Defendant No.22 adopted the written statement filed by defendants No.2, 20, and 21. 6. The trial Court, after reviewing the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:
i) Whether the plaintiffs prove the
