IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 750 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA

S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

2. SMT. NANJAMMA

D/O LATE ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 3. SRI NANJUNDAPPA

S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4. SRI SHANKARAPPA

S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA,

Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

by DEVIKA M

Location: HIGH ALL ARE R/AT KOTALADINNE VILLAGE,

COURT OF HOSSUR HOBLI,

KARNATAKA

GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 210.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. VENKATESH N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA

W/O SRI NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

2. SRI NANJUNDAPPA S/O MYLARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 3. SRI SRIRAMAPPA S/O MYLARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SRI NAGARAJAPPA (LATE)

S/O MYLARAPPA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS

4. SRI KITTI S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 5. SMT. GEETHA D/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 6. SRI SHEKRI S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KOTALADINNE VILLAGE, HOSSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 210.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED IN RA.NO.7/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UP-HELD THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.49/2012 ON THE FILE OF C/C PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that she is the absolute owner in respect of the suit schedule properties, who acquired the same vide registered Will dated 15.04.2006 and plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the defendants are interfering with possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed written statement that Honnappa acquired no right and interest in respect of the suit schedule properties to execute a Will in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration.

5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence as well as the Will Ex.P1, the plaintiff also in order to substantiate the execution of the Will relied upon the evidence of P.W.4, who is an attesting witness and the evidence of attesting witness is also considered by the Trial Court, particularly in paragraph No.24, wherein when the suggestion was made that he was not having any knowledge about the contents of the Will and the said suggestion was denied that only after reading the contents, he had signed the same. The Trial Court also taken note of oral and documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff and P.W.3 is the Scribe of Ex.P1, who prepared the Will as per the desire of the testator and got typed from the typewriter and at the time of execution of Ex.P1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and attestor to Ex.P1 were present before the Sub-registrar and nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.3 and P.W.4 to disbelieve the case of plaintiff with regard to very proving of document Ex.P1. The Trial Court also taken note of the answer elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 in paragraph No.28, wherein categorically admitted that item Nos. A and B schedule properties belong to the joint family i.e., Mylarappa, Eshwarappa and Honnappa and all of them are having share over the property and they are cultivating the property separately and this admission was also taken note of by the Trial Court and also very Honnappa had execut