IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5290 OF 2008 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. NARAYAN S/O. SHANIYAR MOGER, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MATADAHITLU, AT. & POST. KAIKINI, TQ. BHATKAL.

2. SHANIYAR S/O. NARAYAN MOGER, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MATADAHITLU, AT. & POST. KAIKINI, TQ. BHATKAL.

3. KUPPA S/O. NARAYAN MOGER, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MATADAHITLU, AT. & POST. KAIKINI, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN TQ. BHATKAL.

RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High C Ka o r u n r a t t o a f ka, 4. GOLIBERA S/O. NARAYAN MOGER, Dharwad Bench AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MATADAHITLU, AT. & POST. KAIKINI, TQ. BHATKAL.

5. ISHWAR S/O. NARAYAN MOGER, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MATADAHITLU, AT. & POST. KAIKINI, TQ. BHATKAL.

6. JATTAKKA S/O. NARAYAN MOGER, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MATADAHITLU, AT. & POST. KAIKINI, TQ. BHATKAL. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI VIJAY HORATTI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAVI G. SABHAHIT, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

1. MAHADEV S/O. DURGAPPA NAIK, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOINGI HITLU, POST. KAIKANI, TQ. BHATKAL, DIST. U.K.

2. NARAYAN S/O. DURGAPPA NAIK, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOINGI HITLU, POST. KAIKANI, TQ. BHATKAL, DIST. U.K.

3. MASTHAMMA NARAYAN NAIK, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DADIYANAMANE, MATADAHITLU, POST. KAIKANI, TQ. BHATKAL, DIST. U.K.

4. LAXMI W/O. VENKATAPPA NAIK, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MALAKOOSANAMANE, POST. KAIKANI, TQ. BHATKAL, DIST. U.K.

5. KRISHNAMMA W/O. NAGAPPA NAIK, AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O. KADUMANE, MAVALLI, TQ. BHATKAL, DIST. U.K.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.J.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT;

RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4-APPEAL DISMISSED;

NOTICE TO R5 SERVED.)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

100 OF THE CODE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.08.2008, PASSED IN R.A.NO.181/2001, BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HONNAVAR, AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.1998, PASSED IN O.S.NO.66/1997 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), BHATKAL AND TO DECREE THE SUIT WITH COST THROUGHOUT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs questioning the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2008, passed in R.A.No.181/2001, by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Honnavar (First Appellate Court), thereby, reversed the judgment and decree dated 31.08.1998, passed in O.S.No.66/1977, by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bhatkal (Trial Court).

2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs had filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction to declare that the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit property by virtue of Will dated 07.05.1988 executed by father of defendants namely Durgappa Masti Naik. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The defendants have filed the written statement and denied the plaint averments and contended that their father Durgappa had not executed Will dated 07.05.1988. Further pleaded that, admittedly the land is tenancy land as the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Durgappa, the said Durgappa did not have competency to bequeath the property through Will in favour of plaintiffs.

Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. The Trial Court based on the evidence on record has held that the plaintiffs have proved execution of Will as executed by Durgappa by placing reliance on Ex.P.9 Will and appreciating the evidence of PW.2 who is the attesting witness and PW.3 who is scribe of the Will. Therefore, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have proved Durgappa had execu