Claimants failed to establish the will was forged, reinforcing burden of proof and significance of admissions in testimony under the Evidence Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2016, passed in R.A.No.12/2006 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2006 passed in O.S.No.194/2001 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Senior Division and JMFC, Bhadravathi.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The Appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondent was the defendant.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of declaration, to declare that the alleged Will dated 20.03.1997 is concocted, created, forged and not binding upon the plaintiffs as it is illegal, also sought for a declaration that the revenue records in MR.No.19/1998- 1999 is null and void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs, and for mandatory injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule properties.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Mylarachar, and late plaintiff No.1 are the children of Late Devendrachar. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the children of plaintiff No.1 and Mylarachar was the elder brother of plaintiff No.1, who passed away on 09.03.2001.

Mylarachar's wife died about 4 years prior to his death and they had no issues, and that the late Mylarachar and the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. In 1973, Late Mylarachar purchased 'A' schedule property with the financial assistance of plaintiff No.1, from one Shivappa, Mallappa and Guddada Mallappa for valuable consideration under the registered sale deed dated 23.04.1973 and that, due to his personal necessities, and with the consent of plaintiffs sold 25 guntas of land in favour of one Parameshwarappa in 1997, and the plaintiffs and Mylarachar are enjoying remaining 1 acre 35 guntas of land. Due to his old age, the late Mylarachar was completely dependent upon the plaintiffs and his family members and since Mylarachar resided with the plaintiffs until his last breath and the plaintiffs performed all the post-death ceremonies at Mangota Village. During the life time and after the death of Late Mylarachar, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The late Mylarachar had not left any testamentary documents for the disposition of his properties and died intestate, the plaintiffs being class one heirs are entitled to the possession of suit schedule properties as its owners. The defendant is the son of plaintiff's No.1's sister and the Late Mylarachar's sister. The sister of plaintiff No.1 is Smt.Bhageerathamma and that, due to the orphonage status, the defendant used to visit the house of the plaintiffs and late Mylarachar.

5. Plaintiff No.1 and Late Mylarachar jointly celebrated the defendant's marriage at Davanagere on 12.05.2000. The defendant having no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties, is trying to alienate the suit schedule properties in favour of 3^rd parties where he is projecting himself as an absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of a registered will dated 20.03.1997. The plaintiffs requested the defendant not to sell the suit schedule properties, but the defendant did not give any head to request made by the plaintiffs. Hence, a cause of action arises for the plaintiffs to file the suit for relief of declaration etc.

Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

6. Defendant filed a wr