Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22820
RSA No. 100333 of 2021 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 3131 OF 2011 C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100390 OF 2022 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100333 OF 2021 IN RFA NO. 3131 OF 2011:
BETWEEN:
SMT. GANGAWWA W/O GANGANGOUDA SANKANGOUDAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O: DONI-582 121, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG.
… APPELLANT (BY SRI C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SMT. SANKAMMA W/O SHEKHARGOUDA TIPPANGOUDAR, Digitally signed by AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH R/O: SURKOD-582 207, TQ: NARGUND, Location:
HIGH COURT NOW AT DONI-582 121, TQ: MUNDARGI, OF K D A H R A N R A W T A A D KA DIST: GADAG.
BENCH DHARWAD
2. SMT. BASAVANNEWWA W/O YALLAPPAGOUDA KENCHANAGOUDAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: CHIKKAMANNUR-582 209, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. 3. SMT. DRAKSHAYINI W/O YALLAPPAGOUDA KASHIGOUDAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BALAGANUR, NOW AT PANCHAKSHARINAGAR, GADAG-582 101.
RSA No. 100333 of 2021 HC-KAR
4. SMT. SAROJINI W/O. GADIYAPPAGOUDA KENCHANAGOUDAR @ PATIL, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: CHIKKAMANNUR-582 209, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
5. SHRI KALLANAGOUDA GANGANGOUDA SANKANGOUDAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DONI-582 121, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG.
6. SMT. PREMAVVA W/O. BASANGOUDA HARTI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: DONI-582 121, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG.
7. SMT. SHANKRAMMA W/O. HANAMANTGOUDA TIPPANAGOUDAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SURKOD-582 207, TQ: NARGUND, NOW AT DONI-582 121, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG.
… RESPONDENTS.
(BY SRI MRUTYUNJAY S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7;
R1 TO R5 – NOTICE SERVED)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY DECREEING THE SUIT AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2011 PASSED IN O.S. NO.275/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, GADAG AND ETC.,.
IN RFA NO. 100390 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
SMT. GANGAWA W/O. GANGANGOUDA SANKANGOUAR, RSA No. 100333 of 2021 HC-KAR AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O: DONI-582 121, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG. … APPELLANT (BY SRI C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SMT. PREMAWA W/O BASANGOUDA HARTI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: DONI-582 121, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG.
2. SMT. SHANKARMMA W/O HANAMANTGOUDA TIPPANGOUDAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SURKOD-582 207, TQ: NARGUND, NOW AT DONI-582 121, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG.
3. SMT. DYAMAWA W/O YALLAPPAGOUDA HANUMANTAGOUDAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: KOUJAGERI-582 202, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TIBETIAN COLONY, VIVEKANANDANAGAR, GADAG-582 101.
4. SMT. LALITA W/O GURUNGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GADAGOLI-582 203, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
5. SMT. SAVITRI W/O BASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GOVANKOPPA-580 023, TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
6. GANGANGOUDA A/F SANNABASANGOUDA SANKANGOUDAR, DIED ON 14-03-2011 HIS WIFE SMT. GANGAWA SANKANGOUDAR IS ALREADY ON RECORD AS APPELLANT.
RSA No. 100333 of 2021 HC-KAR
7. SMT. BASAVANNEWA W/O YALLAPPAGOUDA KENCHANAGOUDAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: CHIKKAMANNUR-582 209, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. 8. SMT. DRAKSHAYINI W/O YALLAPPAGOUDA KASHIGOUDAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, PANCHAKSHARINAGAR, GADAG-582 101.
9. SMT. SANKAWA W/O SHEKHARAGOUDA TIPPANAGOUDAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: DONI-582 121, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG.
10. SHRI KALLANAGOUDA GANGANAGOUDA SANKANAGOUDAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DONI-582 121, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG.
11. SMT. SAROJINI W/O GADIYAPPAGOUDA KENCHANAGOUDAR @ PATIL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: CHIKKAMANNUR-582 209, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
12. SHRI RAVI VEERAPPA YALAVATTI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DONI-582 121, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MRUTYUNJAY S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
SRI SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R12;
R6 – DEAD, R/BY APPELLANT;
R7, R8, R9, R10 AND R11 – NOTICE SERVED.)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96(1) OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.65/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RSA No. 100333 of 2021 HC-KAR GADAG, INSOFOR AS GRANTING DECREE FOR PARTITION IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IS CONCERNED BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT AND ETC.,.
IN RSA NO. 100333 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
1. PREMAVVA @ PREMA W/O BASANAGOUDA HARTHI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG.
2. SHANKRAVVA @ SHANKRAMMA W/O HANAMANTAGOUDA @ HANAMANATHAGOUDA TIPPANAGOUDRA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SURAKODA, NOW AT DONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG.
… APPELLANTS (BY SRI MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. DYAMAVVA W/O YALLAPPAGOUDA HANAMANATHGOUDRA, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O: KOUJAGERI, NOW RESIDING AT IRANI COLONY, VIVEKANAND NAGAR, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG.
2. LALITA W/O GURANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GADAGOLI TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. 3. SAVITRI W/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GAVISIDDESHWARA COLONY, GOPANAKOPPA, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. GANGAVVA W/O BASANAGOUDA SANKANGOUDRA, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S., RSA No. 100333 of 2021 HC-KAR
4A. SHANKRAVVA W/O SHANTVEERGOUDA HOSAMANI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT: AT POST: DONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, TQ: GADAG.
4B. GANGANAGOUDA BASANAGOUDA SANKANAGOUDAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: AT POST: DONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, TQ: GADAG.
4C. SIDDANAGOUDA BASANAGOUDA SANKANAGOUDAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: AT POST: DONI, TQ: MUNDARGI, TQ: GADAG.
4D. DHYAMAVVA SHEKHARGOUDA KUNDAGOL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT: BALAGANUR, AT POST: BALAGANUR, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG.
5. GANGAVVA W/O BASANAGOUDA SANKANAGOUDRA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DONI, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG.
6. SIDDANAGOUDA S/O BASANAGOUDA SANKANAGOUDRA, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DONI, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R3;
R4 (A TO D), R5 AND R6 – NOTICE SERVED.)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.10.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.49/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, AT GADAG AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.05.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.123/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MUNDARGI, AND DISMISS THE SUIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.
RSA No. 100333 of 2021 HC-KAR THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
The burden of proving a Will's validity lies with the propounder, requiring clear evidence that excludes suspicious circumstances and adheres to statutory requirements of execution.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Dispute regarding testamentary succession and validity of Wills - The appellant sought declaration of rights over property claimed through a will, disputed by respondents as not duly executed due to lack of witnessing - The trial court dismissed the suit based on the conclusion that the Will lacked credible evidence and was executed under suspicious circumstances - The appeals lot have diligently shown discrepancies in the execution of Wills and rightful heirship pursuant to intestate succession. (Paras 4-52)
(B) The court held that the onus to prove the validity of the Wills rested on the propounders, who failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their case, rendering the Wills invalid. (Paras 36-52)
Facts of the case:
The appeals related to disputes over several Wills executed by deceased family members involving multiple plaintiffs asserting their rightful inheritances, citing discrepancies in the Wills, including absence of attesting witnesses and exclusion of natural legal heirs.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court confirmed that absent thorough proof and amid suspicious circumstances surrounding the Wills, no parties could claim rights derived from those documents.
Issues: The court addressed the validity of the Wills purportedly executed by the deceased, the status and rights of each claimant as per familial bonds, and the considerations necessary for determining legal heirship under Hindu succession laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the propounders of a Will must provide convincing evidence establishing the Will's authenticity and execution, particularly under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing judicial caution when suspicious circumstances arise around Wills.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
The appeal in RFA No.3131/2011 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.275/2003, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011, passed therein, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Gadag, thereby, the suit filed for declaration and injunction is dismissed. Whereas, the appeal in RFA No.100390/2022 is filed by defendant No.10 in O.S.No.65/2005, challenging the very same common judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011, thereby, the suit filed for partition and separate possession is decreed.
2. The appeal in RSA No.100333/2021 is filed by defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.123/2013, challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2019, passed therein, by the Senior Civil Judge, Mundargi, and the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2020, passed by the I Additional Principal Family Court, Gadag, in R.A.No.49/2019, thereby, the suit filed for partition is decreed and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the second appeal is filed.
3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are stated with reference to the names shown in the genealogy as it is stated in the plaint, which is not disputed by both the parties in respective cases.
4. The suit in O.S.No.275/2003 was filed by Gangavva for declaration and injunction to declare the property bequeathed to Basanagouda are inherited by Gangavva as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act, 1956’) being Class-I legal heir, as she is mother of Basanagouda.
5. The suit in O.S.No.65/2005 is filed by Premavva and Shankravva for partition.
6. The suit in O.S.No.123/2013 is filed by Dyamavva, Lalita and Savitri for partition and for separate possession, which is challenged in R.A.No.49/2019 by Premavva and Shankravva but the First Appellate Court has dismissed the regular appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.123/2013.
7. It is the case of the parties in all the suits with reference to the genealogy and the genealogy is stated as below:
8. As per the genealogy, one Basanagouda is the original propositus, who has two sons namely Basanagouda and Sannabasanagouda. Kallavva is the wife of Basanagouda (son) and Basavva is the wife of Sannabasnagouda. Basanagouda (junior) and Kallavva were having 2 sons namely Linganagouda and Gangangouda. Linganagouda has 5 daughters namely Premavva, Shankramma, Dyamavva, Lalita and Savitri. Gangawwa (plaintiff in O.S.No.275/2003) is the wife of Gangangouda, who has 4 daughters and 2 sons namely Basavannewwa, Shankawwa, Sarojini, Drakshayini, Basangouda and Kallanagouda.
9. It is not in dispute that Gangangouda had gone in adoption to the family of Sannabasangouda and Basawwa. This adoption is not disputed. It is stated that there was partition between Linganagouda and his mother Kallawwa in the year 1976. Also there was partition between Gangangouda and adopted mother Basawwa in the year 1972.
10. The disputed facts regarding execution of 2 Wills stated to have been executed by Kallawwa and Lingangouda. It is stated that Linganagouda had executed the Will bequeathing the property in favour of Dyamavva, Lalita and Savithri (properties bearing Sy.No.330/1+/2B+4C, Sy.No.15/2 and Sy.No.8/1 respectively) and bequeathed properties in favour of Basangouda, who is the son of Gangangouda and Gangawwa (properties bearing Sy.No.307/2, 308/5 and house properties bearing VPC Nos.502 and 959 on 08.03.1982.
11. It is stated that Kallawwa had executed the Will in favour of her granddaughters namely Premawwa and Shankramma (properties bearing Sy.Nos.21, 312/1A, 330/5, 296/3B and 29/2). It is stated that Lingangouda had sold the properties bearing Sy.No.9/2 in favour of Gangangouda and in turn the daughter of Gangangouda had sold the said land bearing Sy.No.9/2 in favour of purchaser Ravi S/o Veerappa Yelavatti (defendant No.11 in O.S.No.65/2005). Therefore, the suit in O.S.No.275/2003 is filed for declaration by Gangawwa to declare that she is owner of th
