The ratio of the case primarily revolves around whether the female party, Sundar Bai, acquired absolute ownership of the property through the operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The court examined whether she was given only a life interest or an absolute estate in the property. It was held that the will and the circumstances did not establish that she became the absolute owner, as her interest was limited to a life estate. Consequently, she did not have the capacity to execute a will that would transfer absolute ownership, and the subsequent will in favor of the first defendant was not valid to confer such ownership (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the court clarified that if a woman is granted only a life interest, such interest does not automatically enlarge into absolute ownership unless explicitly provided or in circumstances that demonstrate recognition of pre-existing rights, which was not established here. The creation of a limited estate through the will was deemed to be in recognition of her pre-existing right to maintenance, not an absolute ownership (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) ).

In essence, the court's reasoning concludes that the will creating a life estate does not convert Sundar Bai's interest into absolute ownership under the law, and therefore, she lacked the capacity to dispose of the property by will in a manner that would confer absolute title. The subsequent transfer to the first defendant, based on her will, was therefore not valid to establish absolute ownership, and the plaintiff's claim for partition was not upheld on this basis.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

R.F.A. NO. 100121/2014 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI S.B. SAMPAT KUMAR,

S/O LATE BHAKTAVARMAL,

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

OCC.: PROPRIETOR,

BHAKTAVARMAL & SONS,

METAL MERCHANT, DOOR NO. 10/3,

CAR STREET, BELLARY-583 101.

-

APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SATISH M.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SRI S.B. PARASMAL,

S/O LATE BHAKTAVARMAL,

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O DOOR NO. 10/1,

CAR STREET, BELLARY-583 101.

2.

SRI PAWAN JAIN S/O LATE S.B. SUKHRAJ,

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

R/O DOORNO.148/2,

TANK BUND ROAD, BRUCEPET,

BELLARY-583 101.

-

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SATISH S. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1,

NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

R

: 2 :

THIS

REGULAR

FIRST

APPEAL

IS

FILED

UNDER

ORDER XLI RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.04.2014 PASSED IN

O.S. NO. 404/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY & ETC.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD

AND RESERVED FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ ON

08.01.2021

COMING

ON

FOR

‘PRONOUNCEMENT

OF

JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J.,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Ballari, by her judgment

dated 29.04.2014, partly decreed the suit O.S. No.

404/2007, granting 1/3^rd share to the plaintiff in ‘A’

schedule property while dismissing it in respect of ‘B’ and

‘C’ schedule properties. The first defendant is in appeal

as he is aggrieved by the decree in respect of ‘A’ schedule

property.

2.

The material facts are:

The plaintiff, the first defendant and one Sukh Raj,

the deceased, are all sons of Bhaktawarmal, who executed

a Will on 03.04.1982 giving life interest to his wife,

Sundar Bai in ‘A’ schedule property which is a residential

building bearing Nos.148(1), (2), (3) and (4) situate in

: 3 :

Ward No.3, T.S. No. 53, 54, 55 and 56 of block no.1, Tank

Bund Road, Ballari. The will directed that after the death

of Sundar Bai, Bhaktawarmal’s three sons should enjoy

the

property

in

equal

rights

till

their

lifetime

and

thereafter,

the

entire

property

should

go

to

the

grandchildren. On 03.04.1982, Bhatawarmal executed

another will in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of a

property

bearing

door

no.

10/3

in

Car

Street.

Bhaktawarmal died on 13.03.1983. Sundar Bai enjoyed

‘A’ schedule property till her death on 09.06.1995.

Thereafter the three sons of Bhaktawarmal succeeded to

the property as per the recitals of the will. First

defendant was collecting rents from some portions of the

property that had been let out, and giving 1/3^rd share in

the rents to the plaintiff until March, 2004. When

defendant No.1 stopped paying rents to him, he made an

enquiry to ascertain the reason for stoppage of rent and

came to know that Sundar Bai had executed a will dated

19.05.1995 in favour of the first defendant in respect of

‘A’ schedule property. According to the plaintiff, Sundar

Bai had no testamentary capacity as she just had life

: 4 :

interest in the property, the first defendant did not derive

any interest or title by virtue of the will made by Sundar

Bai. The plaintiff therefore, demanded the first defendant

to effect partition; when he did not heed, he got issued a

legal notice. Then he brought a suit for partition in

respect of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. ‘B’ schedule

property consists of household articles and jewellery.

3.

The

first

defendant,

in

his

written

statement

admitted the relationship and life interest being given to

his mother Sundar Bai in the will dated 03.04.1982 made

by Bhaktawarmal. His main contention is that the life

interest given to the mother was in lieu of maintenance

and therefore by virtue of Sec.14(1) of the Hindu

Succession Act (for short