THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 31.01.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.379/2012 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.330/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ANEKAL.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred by defendant No.5 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 31.01.2013 passed in R.A.No.379/2012, on the file of the Fast Track Court and District and Sessions Judge Court, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25.08.2012 in O.S.No.330/2006 (old NO.416/2000) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaint averments are that, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers of one Gowramma. Plaintiff is the son of said Gowramma. It is further stated that, the grandfather of the plaintiff - Chikkabbaiah died on 27.01.1995. It is also stated that, mother of the plaintiff - Gowramma, predeceased her father. The grandfather of the plaintiff - Chikkabbaiah was taking care of the minor plaintiff. It is also stated that, the parents of the plaintiff were cultivating the suit schedule property during the life time of his grandfather - Chikkabbaiah and revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiff. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff has verified the RTC extracts for the year 1999 and came to know that, the name of defendant No.5 was entered in column No.9 and on enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.5, who is wife of brother-in law of defendant No.1, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 20.04.1995. It is also averred in the plaint that, one R. Jagadeesh has been shown as the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff to execute the documents as to sale of suit schedule property. It is further contended by the plaintiff that, the grandfather of the plaintiff - Chikkabbaiah died leaving behind a registered Will dated 14.09.1990 bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff has acquired the right and title in respect of the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the plaintiff attained the age of majority during 1996 and came to know about the fraud being committed by the defendants and as such, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.416/2000 before the Trial Court seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. Thereafter, the suit was re-numbered as O.S.No.330/2006 on the file of the Trial Court.

4. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance, however, the defendant No.5 has contested the suit by filing the written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended by the defendant No.5 that, the plaintiff has executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant No.4 and attested the registered Sale Deed dated 20.04.1995 made in favour of defendant No.5 and therefore, contended that, the averments made in the plaint are false. It is also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff was major as on the date of execution of the registered Sale Deed and as such, denied the execution of the Will dated 14.09.1990 said to have been executed by deceased Chikkabbaiah. Accordingly, defendant No.5 has sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case,