Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28087
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
H.P. SANDESH, J
SMT. VEDAVATHI – Appellant
Versus
SMT. KAMAKKA W/O HONNAPPA – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1878/2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI L. RAJANNA
For the Respondents: SRI LOKESH K.S., SRI A. SAMPATH, SRI N.K. MALLIKARJUN
The court emphasized that a valid Will’s existence must be proven with clear evidence, overriding conflicting oral statements about familial relationships.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100 - Dispute over inheritance of ancestral property - Authenticity of a Will dated 01.01.1975 claimed to be executed by the deceased Kamaiah - Court affirmed that the evidence shows the Will was executed in a sound mind, and reasons for property bequeathal were stated clearly in the Will (Paras 11, 17, 76-79).
(B) Relationship Proof - The Courts erred in relying on oral evidence to establish the plaintiff as the daughter of the deceased, contradicting the registered Will asserting otherwise (Paras 79, 80).
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of ancestral properties after the death of her father Kamaiah, having asserted that she is his daughter. The defendant claimed that a registered Will bequeathed those properties to her (Paras 3, 6).
Findings of Court:
The testimony confirmed that the Will is valid and executed with sound mind despite the plaintiff's claims to ownership (Paras 76-79).
Issues: The primary issues involved were the authenticity of the Will, the proof of relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased, and the timing of property claims (Paras 10, 78).
Ratio Decidendi: It was held that the validity of the Will was clearly established, with proper attestation and written proof dismissing claims of daughterhood based solely on oral testimony, which was insufficient (Paras 76-79).
Result: Appeal is allowed, trial court judgments are set aside, and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background regarding the ownership of property. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments presented by the defendant regarding alleged errors in lower courts. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. substantial questions of law formulated for consideration. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. determination of undue influence or suspicious circumstances regarding the will. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 6. court's conclusion on the validity of execution of the will. (Para 70 , 74 , 75) |
| 7. final ruling on the appeal and its implications. (Para 78 , 79 , 80) |
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for caveator-respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2(a) and (b). This Court earlier heard the matter and answered only substantial question of law No.(ii) and directed to pay Commissioner fee, since an application is filed under Order 26 Rule 9 and 10A CPC was allowed by answering second substantial question of law and an observation was made that other substantial questions of law will be considered after getting report from the Commissioner. Now, the report of the Commissioner is received and placed on record and therefore, the matter is heard afresh.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration to declare that she is the owner of the schedule properties and sought for possession of the suit schedule properties and grant such other relief's, it is contended that she is the only daughter of her parents namely Doddakamaiah and Puttamma of Kunteggowdanahally Village in Sira Taluk and they had no male issues. It is contended that the plaintiff was given in marriage to one Honnappa of the same Village about 35-40 years back. The marriage was performed by her father at Kuntegowdanahlli Village. The plaintiff’s mother died about 20 years back. Since then, the father of the plaintiff used to lead life alone. By that time one Siddamma, wife of Jogappa of the same village and a close contact with him and she used to reside with him by deserting her husband. Later on the defendant who is the daughter of one Siddalingappa, the brother of Doddasiddamma used to come and take shelter with the father of the plaintiff by asserting that her husband by name M.J.Kamaiah of Motaganhalli Village deserted her. With that she began to influence the father of the plaintiff and started to mislead him, taking undue advantage of his smoothness. It is contended that after the death of her mother, the plaintiff used to give frequent visit to her mother’s place Balenahalli as her mother had some landed properties and she also used to look after her father i.e., all necessities, till his death. It is also the contention that she used to assist in his agricultural work and she used to stay most of her day’s in her father’s house.
4. It is contended that the father died on 02.09.1988 and all the death ceremonies were preformed by the plaintiff. After the death of her father Kamaiah, the plaintiff used to look after all the suit properties which are all the ancestral properties of Kamaiah. It is further contended that her father Kamaiah used to look after his daughter plaintiff with most love and affection and he has never parted with his properties in favour of anybody that too ignoring the welfare of the plaintiff and has not given any properties in favour of anybody nor he had allowed anybody to enjoy the same including the defendant. The plaintiff being the legal heir to her father Kamaiah succeeded to the entire suit schedule property as Class I heir and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Such being the case, somewhere in the year 1992, the defendant had come and interfered saying that she is entitled for the properties of Kamaiah’s the Khatha an
