Legal heirs of a deceased intestate retain ownership of property until validly transferred; entries in revenue records do not conclusively establish title.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2015 passed in R.A.No.5018/2015 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, sitting at Srirangapatna.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.

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

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Mythili was the mother of Sri.V.C.Jayakumar, V.C.Beena, V.C.Rajeev, V.C.Nisha i.e., defendant No.1. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late V.C.Beena. V.C.Jayakumar and V.C.Rajeev died issueless. The suit schedule properties were purchased by Mythili on 15.12.1983. Due to her ill health and eyesight problem, she had entrusted the management and control of the suit schedule properties to her son Jayakumar in 1990. He managed the property for and on behalf of the mother untill his death in 2005. After the death of Jayakumar, defendant No.1 and her husband have been managing the property for and on behalf of Mythili. After the demise of Mythili in 2008, they continued the management as co- owners. After the death of Mythili, the plaintiffs are entitled to a half share in the suit schedule property and for the other half share the defendant No.1 is entitle to it. The plaintiffs issued notice demanding their share in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 replied, stating that she is the absolute owner of the property on 06.06.2009 and denied the plaintiffs claim. In the reply notice, defendant No.1 had taken contention that Jayakumar was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and he bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 by executing the Will on 13.09.2004. It is contended that, defendant No.1 has created a fraudulent document in favour of defendant No.2. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession.

Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that at the time of purchasing the suit schedule property in the name of Mythili, Jayakumar paid the entire sale consideration amount to the vendors. Jayakumar was residing in the Gulf and he returned to India in 1985. After returning from the Gulf, he started cultivating the suit schedule property as an owner and the revenue records were transferred in the name of Jayakumar. As an owner, he had executed the Will in favour of defendant No.1, bequeathing the suit schedule property on 13.09.2004. After his demise, based on the Will, defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and the revenue records were changed in the name of defendant No.1. It is further contended that Smt. Mythili submits no objection to change the khata based on the Will executed by her son Jayakumar, and the revenue records were changed in the name of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 regarding the suit schedule property and defendant No.2 is in possession of suit property. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1.

3.2. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement contending that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and defendant No.1 had sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 09.11