ORDER

This petition is by the third and the fourth defendants in O.S. No.4753/2006 pending consideration on the file of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short 'the civil Court']. The respondent’s suit in O.S. No.4753/2006 is decreed on 04.07.2008, but this Court in the corresponding appeals filed by the first petitioner [the third defendant] along with the second defendant in RFA No.1099/2008 and by the respondents [the plaintiffs] in RFA No.1000/2008, has set aside such decree and restored the suit for fresh consideration.

2. This Court, in disposing of the appeals, has allowed the first petitioner’s application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] in her appeal in RFA No.1099/2008 with leave to summon the concerned Bank Manager to produce the original of the disputed last will and testament. This Court has directed the civil Court to dispose of the suit on remand within nine months from 30.09.2021.

3. After this remand, the petitioners have filed their applications for leave to file the written statement. The civil Court, by the impugned order dated 19.04.2022, has rejected these applications only in the premise that this Court has not given opportunity to the petitioners to file Written statement. Sri Dharmesh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri. G.Balakrishna Shastry, the learned counsel for the respondents, are heard for final disposal.

4. The respondents' suit in O.S.

No.4753/2006 is filed for partition of two immovable properties described in the plaint as schedule - A and B properties, and the relationship amongst the parties is not in dispute. The parties are the children of Sri K.R. Rajagopal Iyengar [the deceased first defendant] and Smt. K.R.Lakshmamma. The respondents contend that the Schedule A and B Properties are joint family properties, and Sri K.R. Rajagopal Iyengar [the first defendants] and the second defendant [one of the children], have resisted the suit denying the assertion that these properties are joint family properties, and in fact, the Sri K.R. Rajagopal Iyengar has filed the written statement asserting that schedule - A property is his absolute property and Smt.K.R.Lakshmamma [his wife] has bequeathed the schedule B property in favour of the first petitioner herein and the second defendant.

5. After the judgment and decree dated

04.07.2008, and before the disposal of the aforesaid appeals by this Court, Sri K.R. Rajagopal Iyengar has executed a gift deed for schedule- A property in favour of the second petitioner. This Court, while disposing of these appeals, has opined that there must be fresh consideration to examine the validity of the Last Will and Testament purportedly executed by Sri K.R.Lakshmamma and the gift deed executed by the deceased first defendant observing that the parties must be granted opportunity to prove their respective contentions. This Court's opinion reads as follows:

"In order to come to the conclusion whether there is a valid Will and whether there is a valid gift, it is appropriate to remand the matter for fresh consideration to examine the validity of the testamentary documents i.e, Will as well as gift deed. The Trial Court has to give an opportunity to both the plaintiffs and the defendants to substantiate their contentions to prove the Will as well as gift deed or otherwise it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, it is appropriate to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within nine months from the date of fixing of the date of appearance of the parties and the Trial Court need not give any separate notice to the parties or otherwise it will lead to delaying the proceedings. This Court has come to the conclusion that the genuineness of the Will and gift deed has to be considered and hence it is appropriate to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC filed by the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1099/2008 and also can summon the document from the Bank since according