The appellants aggrieved by the judgment and

decree

dated

12.01.2008,

passed

in

O.S.No.

8615/1995 by the XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions

Judge, Bangalore City, have filed this appeal.

6

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Trial Court. The appellants are the

defendants No.1 to 6 and respondents 1 to 7 are the

plaintiffs and respondents 8 to 10 are the defendants

No.7 to 9 before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal

are as under:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate

possession in respect of the suit schedule properties.

One

T.Loganathan

had

two

wives,

namely

Sharadamma i.e., plaintiff No.1 and Meenambal i.e.,

defendant No.1. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the children of

T.Loganathan and Sharadamma and defendants 2 to 6

are the children of T.Loganathan and Meenambal.

T.Loganathan died on 11.05.1990. During his

lifetime, he had executed a Will on 11.06.1986, which

was handed over to plaintiff No.1. Execution of said

Will

was

witnessed

by

one

M.Jaganathan

and

7

Nachappa. Copy of the Will was produced in

O.S.No.7016/1995 filed by plaintiff No.4. Said suit

was filed demanding due share as per partnership

deed involving property in partnership deed which is

pending. After the death of T.Loganathan, defendants

have hatched a plan by creating the Will alleged to

have been executed on 11.06.1986, which was

witnessed by N.D.Naidu, Advocate and his junior

counsel G.V.Krishnan and said Will was put up for

registration after the death of T.Loganathan on

20.07.1990. The said Will was registered as last Will

of T.Loganathan and was subsequently registered by

forging the signature of T.Loganathan. The plaintiffs

doubting the genuinity of the Will, referred the same

to handwriting expert. The property title deeds signed

by late T.Loganathan have been compared with the

signature in the Will. It was clearly opined that the

Will alleged to have been executed by T.Loganathan,

8

which was specifically registered, was signed by

different person. The said Will is a bogus Will and

same is not binding on the plaintiffs. It is pleaded

that T.Loganathan was carrying on business of

automobile garage under the name and style 8Popular

Auto Garage9 which was a proprietary concern then.

Out of the income earned from the business, late

T.Loganathan purchased a site on 04.11.1963 bearing

No.2 (old No.70), 4^th Main, 12^th Cross, Vasanthanagar,

Bangalore. T.Loganathan constructed residential

house consisting of ground and first floor. At present,

ground floor portion was occupied by defendants and

first floor is in the occupation of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs

demanded for partition and separate possession in

respect of the suit schedule properties. Defendants

refused to effect partition on the ground that

T.Loganathan had executed Will in favour of the

defendants. Hence cause of action arose for plaintiffs

9

to file the suit for partition and separate possession.

Hence the suit.

3.1. The defendants No.1, 3, 4 and 6 filed joint

written

statement

admitting

the

relationship

of

plaintiffs and defendants. It is contended that

schedule 8B9 property was purchased by defendant

No.1 and it is further contended that during the

lifetime of T.Loganathan, he had executed registered

Will deed bequeathing the suit schedule properties in

favour of defendants No.1, 3, 4 and 6. On the

strength of the registered Will deed, defendants have

become the owners of the suit schedule properties.

The said suit schedule properties are the self-acquired

properties of T.Loganathan and plaintiffs have no right

to claim a share in the suit schedule properties.

Hence

the

suit

filed

by

the

plaintiffs

is

not

maintainable. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

10

3.2. The Trial Court, on the basis of pleadings,

framed the following issues:

1.

Whether the plaintiffs prove that they

have got half share in the suit schedule

property A,B,C,D?

2.

Whether the defendants 1 to 6 prove

that the suit schedule properties have