The court upheld that a Will executed in favor of a non-family member violates Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and confirmed that married daughters are entitled to a share in joint family properties.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2013 passed in R.A. No.33/2010 by the Fast Track Court, Udupi and the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2010 passed in O.S.No.49/1994 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Udupi.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were Defendants No.14(a) to (c). Respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and the other respondents were the other defendants.

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

The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 13 are the members of a Hindu joint family, and the suit- scheduled properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 13. It is contended that the suit schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ properties belonged to one H. Ramachandra Rao, who died on 18.12.1988, leaving behind his wife, i.e., Defendant No.1 and his children, i.e., the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 13, as his legal heirs. A major portion of the immovable properties were held by him on occupancy rights. It is contended that after the death of the said Ramachandra Rao, defendants No.1 to 10 were managing the affairs of the suit schedule properties and without the knowledge of the plaintiff, they had entered into some kind of secret agreement for cultivation of ‘B’ schedule properties with defendant No.14, who had a close friendship with late Ramachandra Rao. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice, calling upon the defendants to effect partition. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 10 agreed for partition. However, defendant No.14 issued a reply notice, stating that the late Ramachandra Rao had bequeathed the suit schedule ‘B’ properties in favour of Defendant No.14, by executing a registered Will dated 31.12.1985, and also, he has perfected his title by adverse possession. It is contended that the late Ramachandra Rao did not execute any Will, as alleged by Defendant No.14. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her legitimate share, i.e., a 1/14^th share in the suit-scheduled properties. Hence, on these grounds, prays to decree the suit.

4. After the service of the summons, Defendants No.3 to 5, 11 and 12 remained unrepresented; hence, they have been placed ex parte. Other defendants appeared through their counsel. Defendants No.6, 7, and 9 filed a memo stating that they adopt the contentions of the plaintiff.

5. Defendant No.14 filed a written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. This Defendant is cultivating the suit ‘B’ schedule properties as his khas possession, and he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. It is also contended that the deceased, Ramachandra Rao, had executed a registered Will dated 31.12.1985 in his favour, bequeathing the suit ‘’B schedule properties. He also executed another Will on the same day, bequeathing other suit schedule properties, in favour of his wife and children. It is further contended that this Defendant has effected vast improvements in the ‘B’ schedule properties, and it cost more than Rs.6,00,000/-, and the plaintiff and other defendants have no right, title, or interest in the suit ‘B’ schedule properties. It is stated that the suit is bad for the non- joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit regarding the suit ‘B’ sche