SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 6569

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ravi V Hosmani, J
VYKUNTAIAH – Appellant
Versus
RAVIRAJ – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1644 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Balakrishna Shastry G.
For the Respondents: Sri Punith C.

The burden of proof lies with the propounder of a will to dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, necessitating judicial satisfaction regarding the will's authenticity.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Indian Succession Act - Sections 59, 61, and 63 - Appeal against judgment and decree regarding title of property based on competing wills - Trial Court decreed favorably for plaintiff on basis of a later will, while first appellate Court dismissed the suit, questioning the will's authenticity due to suspicious circumstances - Establishment of the testator's intent and compliance with legal formalities for valid will is critical; the burden lies with the propounder to dispel doubts. (Paras 3, 29, 31, and 46)

(B) Wills - Proof and satisfaction of court - The proof of wills must meet stringent requirements, and in presence of suspicious circumstances surrounding execution, the propounder must satisfy the court of the will's authenticity. (Paras 30-31, 12.1)

(C) Reversal of trial findings - Appellate courts must not interfere unless trial findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence; operational comity mandates adherence to judicial hierarchy. (Paras 39, 46)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff asserted ownership based on a will dated 19.10.2017, while defendant based his claim on a will dated 06.09.2011, both registered but amidst disputes over authenticity and execution validity.

Findings of Court:
The trial Court found the plaintiff's will valid, while the first appellate Court did not adequately address the suspicious circumstances surrounding the defendant's will.

Issues: The core issues included the validity of competing wills and the sufficiency of evidence to establish testamentary intent and sound mind of the testator when executing the challenged wills.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court must weigh evidence credibly, necessitating that any perplexity surrounding a will be resolved to the court's satisfaction before accepting it as a valid expression of the testator's wishes.

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of the first appellate Court reversed and trial Court’s decree restored.

CAV JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and decree dated 05.07.2025 passed by VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, (Sitting at Hunsur), in R.A.no.190/2022 and judgment and decree dated 28.02.2022 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hunsur, in OS no.51/2018, this appeal is filed.

2. Though matter was listed for admission, since records were received and both learned counsel consented for final disposal of appeal on substantial question of law proposed, matter was heard affording opportunity to both counsel.

3. Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by plaintiff in OS no.51/2018 filed seeking for declaration of plaintiff as absolute owner and for permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of dry land bearing Sy.no.169/1 measuring 02 Acres 22 guntas out of 03 Acres 28 guntas of Maradur village, Kasaba Hobli, Hunsur Taluk (‘Suit Property’, for short).

4. In plaint, it was stated that one Sannaiah @ Kengaiah of Somanahalli left behind two sons by name Javaraiah and Purle Javaraiah, who had also since died. It was stated late Javaraiah left behind three children namely Smt.Thimmamma, Smt.Varanandamma and plaintiff - Sri Vykuntaiah. Likewise, late Purle Javaraiah left behind only daughter Smt.Varanandamma, who was married to Shivaiah, but both had later died.

5. It was stated, amongst other properties of late Sannaiah, extent of 03 Acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.no.169/1 belonged to Javaraiah. Out of same, extent of 02 Acres 22 guntas was mutated in name of Smt.Varanandamma D/o Purle Javaraiah as per family settlement. However, as she was unable to cultivate it, plaintiff was cultivating it even as on date of suit. It was stated that Smt.Varanandamma died on 20.10.2017. And he performed her obsequies. And while searching in records, plaintiff found registered Will dated 19.10.2017 executed by Smt.Varanandamma bequeathing suit property in favour of plaintiff. For having his name mutated on basis of Will, plaintiff obtained revenue records, but, found entry of name of defendant, even though he was not a relative of Smt.Varanandamma. On enquiry, he found out that defendant was working as Assistant to one HR Jagadeesh, a Deed Writer at Hunsur. In connivance with him, defendant had managed to create false and fictitious documents to wrest title over suit property. It was stated that taking undue advantage of illiteracy of Smt.Varanandamma, defendant had got created another false and fictitious Will, as if she had bequeathed suit property in his favour.

6. On enquiry, defendant not only threatened plaintiff, but also disputed his title over suit property. Though plaintiff approached revenue authorities, they did not consider his claims. Therefore, he filed suit.

7. On entering appearance, defendant filed written statement denying plaint averments in toto and specifically denying relationship with plaintiff as brother and sister. Tracing lineage to one Sannahaida, as propositus, it was submitted, he married Manchamma and had two children, Doddahaida and Kalaiah, among whom, Doddahaida and his wife Smt.Cheluvamma had died leaving behind defendants i.e., Tharunaiah, Javaraiah and Bundaiah. Tharunaiah and his wife Smt.Kallamma did not have any children, while Javaraiah had two wives by name Manchamma and Devamma. And that Devamma bore three children - Thimmamma, Varanandamma and plaintiff – Vykuntaiah, while Manchamma did not have children. Further, third son - Bundaiah and his wife Halamma died leaving behind eight children namely, Chaluvi, Vairaiah, Varanandamma, Thimmaiah, Shivaiah, Chaluvaiah, Puttaiah and Narayana.

8. It was further stated, second son of Sannahaida i.e., Kalaiah and his wife Thimmamma died leaving behind two sons – Sannsannaiah @ Kengaiah and Bundaiah @ Mannaiah, wherein, Sannsannaiah and his wife Puttamma died leaving behind four sons - Javaraiah @ Javara, Sannaiah, Avannappa and Papaiah, while Bundai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top