SRI. GOPAL SHESHAGIRI BHAT, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS v. SMT. GANGA KOM RAMACHANDRA BHAT

Judgment

3. 4

8. SMT. GANGA KOM RAMACHANDRA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TEREGALI IN KANNADAGAL VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K)-581359. SMT. BHAGIRATHI KOM NARAYAN BHAT, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SOORPANIMANE IN IDAGUNDI VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K)-581359. SMT. GODAVARI KOM SHIVARAM BHAT, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KELAGINAPAL IN BISGOD VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K)-581359. SMT. SUBBI KOM SHESHAGIRI BHAT, SINCE DECEASED APPELLANTS NO. 1 AND 2 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.4. SRI. SRIDHAR S/O. SHESHAGIRI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O TEREGALI IN KANNADGAL VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K.) 581359. SRI. ANANTA S/O. SHESHAGIRI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HUTKANDA VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K.) 581359. SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. SHESHAGIRI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O: RAVEENDRA NAGAR, YELLAPUR TOWN, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K.) 581359. SMT. LAKSHMI S/O. NARAYAN BHAT, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MALYANAKOPPA IN SAHASRALLI VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K.)-581359. - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 9 SMT. SAVITRI GANAPATI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HALASKANDA IN CHANDGULI VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K.)-581359.

10. SMT. PARVATI D/O. SHESHAGIRI BHAT, SINCE DECEASED APPELLANTS NO. 1 AND 2 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.10.

11. SMT. BHAVANI GOPAL HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: DONAGAR VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K.) 581359.

12. SRI. SHESHGIRI S/O. TIMMANNA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHEVKAR VILLAGE, TQ: ANKOLA, (U.K.)-581314.

13. SRI. MAHABALESHWAR S/O. TIMMANNA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHEVKAR VILLAGE, TQ: ANKOLA, (U.K.)-581314.

14. SMT. SEETE GANGADHAR BHAT, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HALASKANDA IN CHANDGULI VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K.)-581359

15. SMT. SUSHEELA DATTATRAY BHAT, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KAVARIGADDE IN LINGADABAIL VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K.)-581359.

16. SMT. MAHALAXMI VENKATRAMANA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KADAGILAKONE IN HEROOR VILLAGE, TQ: SIDDAPUR (U.K.) 581450.

17. SMT. KAVERI KOM GANAPATI HEBBAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KODLAGADDE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K)-581359. - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

18. SMT. RADHA W/O. KRISHNA KORGI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KORGI IN ANGOD VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K.)-581359.

19. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. RAJASHEKHAR GHATAGIMANE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BARAGADDE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K.)-581359.

20. GEETA VIGHNESHWAR KORGI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KORGI IN ANGOD VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K.)-581359.

21. VISHWANATH S/O. SHANKAR GERAGADDE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GERAGADDE IN BALGIMANE VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K.)-581359. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.P HEGDE JANMENE AND SRI. P. V. GUNJAL ADVS. FOR R1 TO R3; R4 & R10-DECEASED A1, & A2 ARE LEGAL HIERS OF R4 & R10; R5 TO R9 & R11 TO R16 - NOTICE SERVED. SRI. MALLIKARJUN B. HIREMATH, ADVS. FOR R17 TO R21) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04-03-2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.58/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT YELLAPUR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS AT O.S.NO.58/2008 BE DISMISSED WIT COST. IN RFA NO. 100149/2022: BETWEEN: SRI. GOPAL SHESHAGIRI BHAT, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

1. SRI. SHESHAGIRI S/O. NARAYAN BHAT, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

2. SRI. VISHWANATH S/O. SHIVARAM BHAT, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

3. SRI. NARAYAN S/O. SHESHAGIRI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

4. SRI. SHIVARAM S/O. SHESHAGIRI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. TEREGALI, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K) (By SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADV. FOR A1 TO A4, SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR A1) ...APPELLANTS AND

5. GANGA KOM RAMACHANDRA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TEREGALI, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K). BHAGIRATHI W/O. NARAYAN BHAT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. IDAGUNDI, YELLAPUR (U.K). GODAVARI W/O. SHIVARAM BHAT, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KELAGINAPAL, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K). KAVERI W/O. GANAPATI HEBBAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KODLAGADDE, TQ: YELLAPUR. RADHA W/O. KRISHNA KORGI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KOREGI IN ANGOD VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K). - 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

8. RAJESHWARI W/O. RAJASHEKHAR GHATAGIMANE AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BARAGADDE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K). GEETA W/O. VIDHNESHWAR KORAGI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KORAGI IN ANGOD VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K) VISHWANATH S/O. SHANKAR GERAGADDE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GERAGADDE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K). SHESHAGIRI BHAT, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

SMT. SUBBI KOM SHESHAGIRI BHAT, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, APPELLANT NO. 1 & 2 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R9.

10. SMT. LAXMI KOM NARAYAN BHAT, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MALYANAKOPPA IN SAHASRALLI VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K).

11. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. GANAPATI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HALASKANDA IN CHANDGULI VILLAGE, TQ. YELLAPUR (U.K).

12. SMT. PARVATI D/O. SHESHAGIRI BHAT, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS, APPELLANT NO.1 AND 2 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R9.

13. SMT. BHAVANI W/O. GOPAL HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. DONAGAR VILLAGE, TQ. YELLAPUR (U.K) - 7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

14. SHESHGIRI S/O. TIMMANNA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHEVKAR VILLAGE, TQ: ANKOLA (U.K).

15. MAHABALESHWAR S/O. TIMMANNA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHEVKAR VILLAGE, TQ: ANKOLA (U.K).

16. SMT. SEETE GANGADHAR BHAT, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HALASKANDA IN CHANDGULI VILLAGE, TQ. YELLAPUR (U.K).

17. SMT. SUSHEELA DATTATRAY BHAT, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KAVARIGADDE IN LINGADABAIL VILLAGE, TQ: YELLAPUR (U.K).

18. SMT. MAHALAXMI W/O. VENKATRAMANA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KADAGILAKONE IN HEROOR VILLAGE, TQ: SIDDAPUR (U.K).

19. ANANT S/O. SHESHAGIRI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, R/O. TEREGALI, TQ. YELLAPUR (U.K).

20. SHRIDHAR S/O. SHESHAGIRI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. TEREGALI, TQ. YELLAPUR (U.K).

21. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. SHESHAGIRI BHAT AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. TEREGALI, TQ. YELLAPUR (U.K) (R4 TO R8, & R10, R11, R13 TO R21-NOTICE SERVED; R9 & R12 –DECEASED; A1 & A2 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF R9 & R12). …RESPONDENTS - 8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.221/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT YELLAPUR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUNTLY THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AT OS NO.221/2006 BE DECREED AS PRAYED FOR. THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD, RESERVED ON 09.08.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Validity of the Will dated 05.02.2003 alleged to have been executed by Ramchandra Gopal Bhat favour of the plaintiffs O.S.No.221/2006 is involved in both these cases.

2. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 04-03-2016 passed in O.S.Nos.221/2006 and 58/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur.

3. R.F.A.No.100109/2016 is filed by the appellants - defendant Nos.3 (a), 3 (b), 4 and 5 being aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit in O.S.No.221/2006, whereas R.F.A.No.100149/2022 is filed by plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 in O.S.No.58/2008 arrayed as defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.221/2006. Initially these appellants filed an - 9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 appeal before the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, sitting at Sirsi, in R.A.No.5009/2016. As per the orders passed by this Court in Civil Petition 100097/2018 dated 17.04.2021, the said appeal was withdrawn and transferred to this Court, re-numbered as R.F.A.No.100149/2022 and consolidated with R.F.A No. 100109/2016. As both the appeals arise out of a common judgment passed in the aforesaid suits which are connected with each other, and on hearing the common arguments, common judgment is passed in both these appeals.

4. Parties to these appeals are referred convenience as per their status in O.S.No.221/2006.

5. The brief and relevant facts as set up by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.221/2006 are as under: The plaintiffs therein are the children of Sheshagiri Gopal Bhat. He had one half share in the suit survey numbers and remaining one half share was belonged to deceased Ramchandra Gopal Bhat. Defendant No.1 is the wife of deceased Ramchandra Gopal Bhat and defendants - 10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 2 to 4 are his married daughters. Defendant Nos.5 to 8 are the grand children of deceased Ramchandra Gopal Bhat. Mother of defendant Nos.5 to 8 is no more who was the daughter of defendant No.1.

6. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father Sheshagiri Gopal Bhat “S.G. Bhat” for short and his brother Ramchandra Gopal Bhat “R.G.Bhat” for short were living jointly. Sheshagiri Gopal Bhat has six sons and five daughters. All are married. The surviving legal heirs of R.G.Bhat are defendant No.1 and S.G.Bhat. It is stated that marriage of four daughters of R.G.Bhat was performed under the management of S.G.Bhat about 28 years ago prior to filing of the suit.

7. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, they used to look after their uncle R.G.Bhat and he was under their full care. It is plaintiffs who used to cultivate the properties and improved the same by investing huge funds. R.G.Bhat had shown too much love and affection towards the plaintiffs, so also plaintiffs used to love their uncle and they were very affectionate with him. - 11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

8. It is the specific allegation of the plaintiffs that, out of love and affection shown by their, towards R.G.Bhat, during his life time, he executed a registered Will dated 05.02.2003 favour of the plaintiffs bequeathing his half share in the suit survey numbers. It was his last Will. He died on 23.05.2003.

9. It is alleged that all the plaintiffs being the legatees under the Will succeeded to the properties of the testator i.e., R.G.Bhat. The said Will was acted upon and plaintiffs got their names entered in the revenue records. It is alleged that, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal challenging the said Mutation Entry No. 1746 of Kannadgal village before the Assistant Commissioner, Sirsi. The said appeal came to be allowed. Accordingly, the names of defendants came to be entered in the revenue records. Because of that order, plaintiffs filed the suit against defendants seeking relief of declaration of their title over the suit schedule properties based on the Will dated

05.02.2003 and also sought permanent injunction to - 12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

10. Defendant Nos.1 to 8 appeared before the Trial Court, resisted the suit of the plaintiffs by denying the entire allegations made in the plaint except admitting the date of death of R.G.Bhat. Each and every allegation made with regard to the love and affection of the plaintiffs towards deceased, his execution of the Will in their favour is stoutly denied by the defendant Nos.1 to 8. There was no occasion for the deceased to execute the Will in favour of the plaintiffs as R.G.Bhat died leaving behind his wife and his daughters.

11. It is their specific contention that deceased R.G.Bhat during his life time was suffering from head cancer. All along, it was defendant No.1 who was residing with the deceased and it was she, who looked after him during his life time. Defendant No. 1, wife of deceased testator, took care of him till his last breath on

25.05.2003. He was complaining intolerable pain in his head because of cancer. At that time, deceased requested - 13 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 his brother S.G.Bhat to admit him to the hospital. It is alleged that, as S.G.Bhat was a cruel human being and he refused to admit R.G.bhat to hospital. Because of cancer, the testator had almost lost his mental stability and thinking capacity. He was not in a position to go outside the house without assistance of defendant No.1. He died at the age of 85. Due to old age, he had lost his eye sight and hearing capacity. Thus, it is contended that, the Will set up by the plaintiffs is a concocted, created and bogus document. At the instance and instigation of the plaintiffs behind the back of defendant No.1, plaintiffs got entered their names in the revenue records. Defendant No.1 challenged the same and the Assistant Commissioner was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the mutation entry certified in favour of the plaintiffs.

12. Defendant No.9 died during the pendency of the suit, children of defendant No.9 were brought on record. The written statement of defendant No.1 was adopted by the other defendants. - 14 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

13. So far as pleadings the plaint O.S.No.58/2008 is concerned, they are nothing but the replica of the written statement filed in O.S.No.221/2006. So far as earlier partition in the family is concerned, it is pleaded by the defendants being the plaintiffs O.S.No.58/2008 that a suit, O.S.No.89/1974, was filed by one Mabeleshwar Bhat against his brothers in the file of, the then Munsiff Court, Yellapur. The said suit ended in compromise. S.G.Bhat and R.G.Bhat were allotted joint schedule properties mentioned O.S.No.221/2006. By filing this suit the defendants have challenged the said Will set up by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.221/2006 and have sought the relief of partition and separate possession of their 3/10th share in the suit schedule properties and for declaration that the Will dated

05.02.2003 is a got up and not a genuine document.

14. The defendants in O.S.No.58/2008 being the plaintiffs in O.S.No.221/2006 have filed their written statement. The contents of the written statement filed are nothing but the repetition of their plaint averments in - 15 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 O.S.No.221/2006. Defendant Nos.3(a) and 4 independent written statement and defendant No.3(b) adopted the written statement of defendant No.3(a). It is contended by the present suit is not maintainable. It is contended that defendant Nos.4 to 8 in O.S.No.58/2008 have converted the land into a garden land and joint family funds was not utilized. They never used any joint family funds for purchasing the properties.

15. Defendant Nos.1, 5, 7 and 8 adopted the written statement of defendant No.4.

16. In O.S.No.58/2008, defendant No.3(a)- Sheshagiri Narayan Bhat contends that defendant No.3- Gopal Sheshagiri Bhat is his brother, and he died on

26.12.2012. Defendant 3(a) and 3(b) are the sons of defendant Nos.4 and 5 respectively. Defendant No.3- Gopal Sheshagiri Bhat died unmarried and without any issue. During his life he executed a Will on 03.12.2008 in favour of defendants 3(a) and 3(b) by virtue of the said Will, defendant No.3(a) and 3(b) i.e., plaintiff No.1(a) and 1(b) in O.S No.221/2006 succeeded to his properties. - 16 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

17. It is contended by defendants 4 and 5 that Sl.No.8 of the property described in ‘A’ schedule is not the joint family ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants. It was defendant Nos.4 to 8, by their own income purchased the same. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.58/2008 cannot claim any share in the same. Before the Trial Court, defendant Nos.2, 6, 13 to 22 remained absent and hence they were placed exparte.

18. Based on the rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues in both the suits. They read as under: Issues of O.S.No.221/2006 are as under:

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that deceased Ramachandra Gopal Bhat had executed a valid Will on 5-2-2003 out of love and affection bequeathing all his properties in sound state of mind as alleged in the plain?

2. If so, whether the plaintiffs prove that by virtue of the said Will, they have became absolute owners of the suit schedule properties as alleged?

3. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that on the guise of getting their name entered into revenue records, defendants are interfering into their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the defendants as alleged? - 17 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

4. Whether the defendants prove that at the time of execution of the alleged Will, Dt: 5-2-2003, deceased Ramachandra Gopal Bhat was not at all mentally sound and was suffering from brain cancer and he had no occasion to execute the Will as contended in their written statement?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as claimed?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction so prayed?

7. What Order or Decree? Issues of O.S.No.58/2008 are as under:

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove the suit properties are the joint family properties of them and the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the alleged Will dated: 5-2-2003 alleged to have been executed by the deceased Ramachandra Gopal Bhat is got up and not genuine one as contended in para No.9 of their plaint?

3. Whether the defendant No.4 proves defendant No.4 to 8 have purchased the properties at Sl.No.4 and 5 and that these properties are their self acquired properties?

4. Whether the defendant Nos.4 to 8 proves that the suit properties at Sl.No.6 and 8 are purchased by them, in the year 2006-2007 by availing the loan from the LSMP Society, Yellapur as stated in para No.15 of their written statement? - 18 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

5. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that the suit Sl.No.2 in “A’ schedule property granted by government in his individual capacity and it is not the joint family property?

6. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to the extent of their 3/10th share in the suit schedule properties?

7. What decree or order? Additional Issue No.1 of O.S.No.58/2008 framed on 11-10-2013 reads as under:

1. Whether defendant Nos.3(a) and (b) prove execution of Will dated 3-12-2008 as contended?

19. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.221/2006, substantiate their case, examined in all 4 witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 with respective signatures thereon. To rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs, defendants in the said suit examined two witnesses as DWs-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D.1 to 22 and closed their side of evidence.

20. The learned Trial Court on hearing arguments and on perusal of the records dismissed O.S.No.221/2006 with costs and decreed O.S.No.58/2008 - 19 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 granting 3/10th share each to the plaintiffs in the said suit in ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and also movable properties as per the inventory reports dated 10.12.2008 and 01.08.2009 submitted by the Commissioner. It is also declared that Will dated 05.02.2003 alleged to have been executed by Ramchandra Gopal Bhat as null and void and not a genuine document. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.58/2008 were permitted to move for drawing final decree. Accordingly, preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.58/2008. This is how these two appeals are filed before this Court.

21. It is submitted by the learned counsel Shri. G.B. Shastry for the appellants in both the appeals that, so far as relationship between the appellants and respondents is concerned, there is no dispute as such. Thus, the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants as stated in the plaint is not disputed by both the sides. It is submitted that the deceased R.G.Bhat (hereinafter called as ‘deceased’ for the purpose of convenience) during his lifetime out of love and affection towards the plaintiffs - 20 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 bequeathed his share in their favour. The said Will was duly registered before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yellapura, on 05.02.2003. The attesting witnesses have put their signatures. Even the plaintiffs have examined the attesting witnesses as mandated under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to the proof of Will. It is submitted that the suggestions directed to PW-1 in the cross-examination proves his presence at the time of execution of the said Will as an attesting witness.

22. It is submitted that, the learned Trial Court disbelieved evidence plaintiffs O.S.No.221/2006 though they were able to prove their love and affection towards deceased testator and his love and affection towards them. It is his submission that plaintiffs were able to prove genuineness of the said Will. It was the last Will of the deceased bequeathing his half share in favour of the plaintiffs. No fault can be found in the proof of Will. The suspicious circumstances, if any, with regard to the execution of the said Will were dispelled by the plaintiffs. Therefore, he submits that the Trial - 21 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 Court has committed illegality in disbelieving the said valid Will dated 25.02.2003.

23. In support of his submission, he took us to the pleadings, evidence of the attesting witness and propounder of the Will, and also findings of the Trial Court. He argues for allowing the appeal by holding that the said Will dated 05.02.2003 executed by the deceased is a genuine, granting relief’s claimed O.S.No.221/2006 and dismissing O.S.No.58/2008.

24. Refuting this submission, learned counsel Shri. A.P. Hegde for the respondents submits that, when the deceased had his wife and daughters, it was impossible to expect execution of the Will in favour of the plaintiffs. It was all along plaintiffs’ father who was in dominating position and the deceased was discarded by the plaintiffs and their father. It is submitted that, it was deceased who used to work as a carpenter and also painting the cars. There was dislike in the family towards the deceased. It was deceased who performed the marriage of his daughters. He had much love and affection towards his - 22 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 wife and daughters and his son-in-laws. They often used to visit the house of deceased and used to take care of him. Deceased was suffering from head cancer. He was experiencing too much of pain in his head. When there was request to the plaintiffs and their father to provide proper treatment to the deceased, it was flatly refused. Deceased wanted to have proper treatment in well equipped hospital for his cancer disease. Plaintiffs though were financially sound did not assist the deceased to take treatment. They never parted with any single paise to take treatment. This attitude of the plaintiffs and their father was always in the mind of the deceased.

25. It is submitted that, deceased had the habit of writing his diary. In his diary, he has narrated the conduct of the plaintiffs and their father in not providing him proper financial assistance. So also he had narrated the attitude of the plaintiffs and their father in disliking the deceased. Therefore, there was no occasion for the deceased to show his love and affection towards the plaintiffs and think of executing a Will bequeathing his - 23 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 share in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, as per the submission of the counsel for the respondents, the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the said Will is not a valid Will. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Hence, he prays for dismissing the appeal.

26. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of both the sides. Perused the records.

27. The lis between the plaintiffs and defendants is based on the validity or invalidity of the Will alleged to have been executed by R.G.Bhat (deceased) dated

05.02.2003. If the plaintiffs succeed in proving the Will, then the defendants are out of Court. If the plaintiffs fail to prove the genuineness of the said Will, then they have to be non-suited. Therefore, in view of the rival contentions, following points arise for our consideration: “i) Whether the learned Trial Court has committed any illegality or perversity in finding the Will as not a genuine document? - 24 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 ii) If so, whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court require interference by this Court?”

28. For the purpose of convenience, it is just and proper to narrate the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants.

29. Plaintiffs are the sons of S.G.Bhat who had half joint share in the suit survey numbers. Deceased R.G.Bhat was the holder of another half share as per the compromise decree passed by the then Munsiff Court, Yellapur, in O.S.No.89/1974. Defendant No.1 is the wife of deceased R.G.Bhat and defendants 2 to 4 are his married daughters. Defendant 5 to 8 are the grand children of defendant No.1 and the deceased. As mother of defendants 5 to 8 is no more, being the daughter of deceased and defendant No.1, they are arrayed as parties in the suit. - 25 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

30. A plaintiffs too admit that deceased is survived by defendant No.1 and his four daughters. But they also state that their father S.G.Bhat is an heir to the deceased.

31. PW-1 by name Subramanya Annayya Bhat being the attesting witness to the Will deposed in his evidence about his presence at the time of preparing the Will, going to the Sub-Registrar’s Office at Yellapur, reading out the Will and signing the Will in the presence of Sub-Registrar. Through him, the Will is marked at Ex.P.1, being the attesting witness. The so-called signatures of deceased are marked through this witness as per Ex.P.1(c) to (e). He also identified the signature of other witnesses.

32. The cross-examination directed to this PW-1 is worth reading. In unequivocal terms, PW-1 admits that wife of plaintiff No.3 is his sister. He also admits that a sister of another attesting witness to the Will namely Venkataramana Narasimha Bhat is given in marriage to plaintiff No.2. - 26 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

33. As per his evidence, on 05.02.2003 deceased came to his house with plaintiff No.2 and witness Venkataramana Narasimha Bhat, in an autorickshaw. At that time, deceased told him that, he would execute the Will. All of them went to Yellapur on his vehicle. The Will was drafted in Taluka Office, Yellapur, where the Sub- Registrar had camped. One Vishwanath Moole scribed the Will. It was read over to the deceased. It is stated that initially the Will was written in handwriting. Thereafter, it was typed in a typing centre. Deceased and plaintiff No.2 got it typed. After comparison of the same, the written Will was torn out.

34. PW-1 admits that deceased testator was suffering from cancer of his right throat and jaw. He deposed that he did not know as to from which date prior to 05.02.2003 he was suffering from cancer. He has stated that there was a protrusion visible from outside of said Ramchandra Gopal Bhat’s cancer injury. According to the evidence of PW-1, deceased used to stay as the member of the joint family. - 27 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

35. According to PW-1, they signed the Will outside the Taluk Office and not before the Sub-Registrar. He admits that there is some interpolation of a sentence in the said Will. The said insertion was at the instance of Sub-Registrar.

36. He also deposed that, there is no mention in the will with regard to the future maintenance of wife of the deceased testator i.e., defendant No.1. He admits that deceased had love and affection towards his wife and daughters, so also his son-in-laws and grand children. Even his daughters, son-in-laws and grand children used to visit deceased. It is admitted by him that it is plaintiff No.2 who was managing the affairs of the entire joint family.

37. From the evidence of PW-1, it is very much clear that he is a close relative of the plaintiffs. His sister is married to plaintiff No.3. Deceased was suffering from cancer. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 shows that the health of the deceased was not good and he was suffering from cancer. - 28 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

38. PW-2 is none other than plaintiff No.2. He has reiterated plaint averments in his evidence. He is consistent in his evidence about execution of the Will dated 05.02.2003 in favour of the plaintiffs by the deceased. So also he deposed about the sound state of mind of deceased in execution of the Will marked as Ex.P.1. An intensive cross-examination was directed to him. He deposed that deceased was knowing to read and write. But, he does not know his educational qualification. He was confronted with the hand writings of deceased. But, he deposed that the said hand writings are not the hand writings of the deceased Ramchandra Gopal Bhat.

39. In the cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that there was some ill-will between 1st defendant and her husband and they used to quarrel with each other. But, he has not seen the said quarrel. On reading his evidence, it cannot be stated that, he has deposed truth before the Court. When he has not seen defendant No.1 and deceased quarreling with each other, the question of his knowing that there was ill-will between husband and wife - 29 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 is ruled out. He has deposed ignorance about the fact of deceased having half share in the properties.

40. He deposed ignorance about maintaining of a diary (book) in which the deceased had personally written his day to day affairs/happenings. He admits that, deceased had performed the marriage of his daughters to the suitable bride grooms. So also he admits that, after marriage of his daughters, defendant No.1 used to stay with her husband i.e., deceased testator. He admits that, it was defendant No.1 who looked after the well being of her husband.

41. He deposed that deceased was a diabetic patient. According to him, deceased was taken to Dr.Joshi i.e., City Clinic at Hubballi, and there he was treated. But to show about providing treatment to the deceased, except the say of PW-2, there is no evidence. He admits that deceased was suffering from cancer disease which was in advanced stage. - 30 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

42. He admits that daughters and son-in-law of the deceased used to visit the house to enquire about the health of the deceased. Even deceased also used to visit the houses of his daughters. But he expressed ignorance that he did not know whether deceased and defendant No.1 were having any love and affection towards their daughters.

43. PW-1 admits that all the joint family members have put their labour and worked hard to develop the joint family properties. He admits that there was a separate room in a joint family for the stay of deceased and defendant No1. They used to keep their personal belongings in the said room and used to go out of the same by putting lock to the said room. He does not know how his uncle i.e., deceased came in possession of Ex.P.1. According to him, deceased handed over the same to him with open cover. He admits that prior to he getting the said Will, he was having knowledge about the said Will. PW-1 is younger brother of PW-2’s wife. One - 31 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 Venkatramana Bhat, another witness i.e., DW-2 is the elder brother of PW-1’s wife.

44. PW-2 admits that, on the date of the Will, he was very much present with his uncle R.G.Bhat and others were not present. He visited Yellapur on that day on his motorcycle.

45. From the evidence of this PW-2 discussed supra, it clearly shows the active participation of PW-2 at the time of preparing the said document. Further, he deposed that on the date of alleged Will he was very much present with testator commencing from beginning till departure and till arrival to the house. That means this admission of PW-2 establishes about his accompanying deceased being propounder of the Will at the time of execution of the Will. According to him, it was a voluntary Will of the deceased. He had seen one Vishwanath Vasudev Moole scribing the Will.

46. He was confronted with a photograph Ex.D.1. According to him in the said photograph, the photo of his - 32 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 uncle R.G.Bhat and his wife was taken. He specifically states that, photo affixed to the said Will is the photo of his uncle i.e., deceased testator. But, the fact of presence of the deceased at the time of execution of the Will is denied by the defendants. He deposed that, wife of the testator is now residing in the house of his junior uncle Venkatrama Mahabaleshwar Bhat. When plaintiffs showed love and affection towards deceased testator, after his demise, plaintiffs ought to have shown similar love and affection towards their paternal aunt i.e., defendant No.1 who is the wife of deceased testator. But, no such pleading or evidence is brought on record by the plaintiffs to show the genuineness of their pleadings pleaded in the plaint.

47. On reading the entire evidence spoken to by PW-2, it is very much clear that there was active participation of this PW-2 being the beneficiary of the Will in the preparation of the said Will.

48. PW-3 speaks of execution of the Will executed by Sheshagiri Gopala Bhat. PW-4 Vinayak Ganapathi Bhat - 33 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 is the witness to the Will dated 03.12.2008. The evidence of these PWs-3 and 4 can be appreciated only when the Will alleged to have executed by Ramchandra Gopal Bhat is proved. Therefore, unless the said Will is proved, no finding can be given on the Will so set up by the plaintiffs through these PWs-3 and 4. Therefore, at this stage there cannot be any appreciation of evidence of these PWs-3 and 4.

49. So far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.P.1 is the sheet anchor set up by the plaintiffs. It is the Will alleged to have been executed by deceased R.G.Bhat. On reading this document, a simple averment is made in the Will at the initial paragraph No.4 that, himself and his wife Ganga are residing along with his brother Sheshagiri and his children. Even it is recited that the beneficiary under the Will i.e., brother and children cared for welfare of the deceased testator and his wife. He is suffering from cancer. These beneficiaries under the Will are providing treatment to him. - 34 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

50. It is found in page No.2 about insertion of sentence with regard to the enforcement of the contents of the said Will. On perusal of the photograph, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the said photograph belongs to the deceased. To prove the said fact, they have produced Ex.D.7 photograph along with negative. Both appear to be similar.

51. Whereas defendants have produced photograph as per Ex.D.1 which was marked subject to objection. This photo frame shows the photographs of deceased R.G.Bhat and his wife. Relying upon these two photographs, it is submitted that, the photograph found in Exs.P.1, 7 and Ex.D.1 are similar. Since Ex.P.1 contains the photographs of the deceased, his presence at the time of execution of the said Will is proved by the plaintiffs.

52. On perusal of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.7, we find that there the person whose picture is there in Ex.P.1 is not wearing cap. But Ex.D.1 shows wearing of a cap. On meticulous examination of the photographs, though - 35 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 similarities in facial features can be seen, differences in facial features at the same time can be utilised.

53. It is the case of the defendants that, deceased never went to the Sub Registrar’s office and the father of the plaintiffs who resembled the deceased almost was taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar and his photograph was affixed. To prove the said factum, defendants rely upon the evidence of DW-1 Smt.Godavari Shivaram Bhat arrayed as defendant No.3. She is the daughter of deceased. She deposed that first defendant is her mother and wife of deceased testator. Herself and other defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the daughters and defendant Nos.5 to 8 are grand children of the deceased. According to her evidence, the signatures found on Ex.P.1 are not of her father. The photograph affixed to Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.7 are not the photographs of her father. Ex.D.1 contains the photograph of her father and mother. She is consistent that her father was suffering from head cancer - 36 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 and died at the age of 85. At that time, he had no eye sight and he was not having hearing capacity.

54. The so-called Will shows that it was executed about 3-4 months’ prior to the death of deceased testator. When deceased was suffering from severe head cancer and was not having eye sight and hearing capacity, the evidence of PW-1 that, deceased himself came to his house with Venkatrama in a vehicle and told him that he was going to execute a Will in favour of the plaintiffs cannot be accepted.

55. DW-1 is none other than the daughter of the deceased. It is quite natural to expect that daughter is the best person to identify her father’s photographic picture i.e., Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.7 produced by the plaintiffs though show the photographs but she denies that the said photographs are of her father, heavy burden was on the plaintiffs to prove the genuineness of the photographs. According to her evidence her father always used to wear the cap. - 37 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

56. DW-1 deposed about the note books marked as Exs.D.5 to 8 containing the hand writings of her father. Though, they are marked in evidence subject to objection, the evidence brought on record show strained relationship between plaintiffs and deceased. The note books contain record made by the deceased about ill-treatment and harassment on him by the plaintiffs and their father. There is no proper denial of these factual features stated by DW-

1. The entire contents of the said note books are not denied by the plaintiffs.

57. Though, PW-2 says that himself, other plaintiffs, their father and the deceased performed the marriages of the daughter of the deceased, but PW-1 deposed that it was the deceased testator who performed the marriage of his daughters. PW-1 is the close relative. He has given a natural evidence that the deceased himself performed the marriages of his daughters. So this goes to establish that PW-2 has spoken falsehood before the Court in order to gain sympathy from the hands of the Court. - 38 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 DW-1 never says that plaintiffs’ father performed the marriage of daughters of the deceased.

58. DW-2 corroborates the evidence of DW-1. He was signatory to Ex.P.1. He signed the said document in the house of plaintiff No.6 situated in front of PLD Bank. Thus, the evidence of DW-2 shows about he signing Ex.P.1 not before the Sub-Registrar or in Taluka Office. He is specific that his intention was not to cause injustice to any of the parties. He has stated that at the instance of PW-2, he put his signature.

59. It has come in the evidence of PW-2 that after execution of the said Will, the names of the plaintiffs came to be entered in the revenue records but it was challenged by defendant No.1. Ex.P.3 is the mutation entry marked through PW-2 whereas Ex.P.3 shows the mutation register extract in the name of S.G.Bhat. The RTC extracts are also produced at Exs.P.5 and 6.

60. To show that certain lands were purchased, the copy of the sale deed is produced at Ex.P.8. - 39 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

61. The defendants have produced Ex.D.2 the certified copy of the compromise petition O.S.No.89/1974 and the decree as per Ex.D.2(a). The factum of earlier compromise is not denied by the plaintiff.

62. Thus, on reading the entire pleadings and evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs and defendants, the following suspicious circumstances with regard to the execution of the said Will surface. i) Disinheriting the wife, daughters and grand children, ii) No provision is made for the wife towards her maintenance and future life, iii) No provision is made for giving any share to his daughters and grand children, iv) Deceased was suffering from severe cancer and it was at final stage, v) His physical and mental condition was not good. He was not in sound state of mind with regard to the execution of the Will, vi) Active participation of PW-2, one of the propounders of the Will, - 40 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 vii) PW-1 and PW-3 being the attesting witnesses are the close relatives of the plaintiffs, viii) There is suspicion with regard to the very participation of the deceased and his presence at the time of alleged execution of the Will, ix) Very signing of the Will in the Taluka Office and not before the Sub Registrar, x) Interpolation in the Will at the instance of Sub Registrar, xi) Possibility of Impersonation by brother of the deceased in execution of will. xii) Dying of deceased within four months from the date of execution of the alleged Will that too due to deadly disease of head cancer, xiii) The eye sight and the hearing capacity of the deceased.

63. If all these suspicious circumstances are put together, it can be stated that, the Will Ex.P.1 is shrouded with suspicious circumstances. It is not a genuine Will. Plaintiffs must have concocted the said Will to deprive the defendants of their rights in the properties of their father. - 41 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

64. It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a landmark judgment in H.VENKATACHALA IYENGAR VS. B.N.THIMMAJAMMA AND OTHERS1 that: “The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free Will.”

65. In another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SMT. INDU BALA BOSE AND OTHERS VS. MAHINDRA CHANDRA BOSE AND ANOTHER2 it was held as under: “The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus.” It is further observed that: 1 AIR 1959 SC 443 2 AIR 1982 SC 133 - 42 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 “suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signature or the testator, the condition of the testator’s mind, the dispositions made in the Will being unnatural, improbable, or unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances, or there might be other indications in the Will to show that the testator’s mind was not free.”

66. In another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in PUSHPAVATI AND OTHERS VS. CHANDRAJA KADAMBA3 it is held as under: “Where there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder of the Will has to explain them away to the satisfaction of the Court.” It is further observed that: “Where the signature of the testator is challenged as a forged signature and the Will does not come from proper custody of the public authority or a family Solicitor, the fact that the dispositions made in the Will were unnatural, improbable or unfair, would undoubtedly create some doubt about the Will, especially, when the document is unregistered and comes from the custody of a person who is the major beneficiary under the Will.” 3 AIR 1972 SC 2492 - 43 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022

67. Thus, it is for the plaintiffs to prove the genuineness of the will. That means it is impossible to record such satisfaction unless the party which sets up a Will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the Will.

68. It is true that the Will in question cannot be viewed with suspicion only because the plaintiffs have played an active role in execution of the Will. But the other surrounding circumstances also play an important role.

69. Reading the Will in question, the appellants- plaintiffs are the only beneficiaries of the Will. The evidence on record shows that plaintiff No.2 has also played an active role in the preparation of the alleged Will. Plaintiff No.2 being the beneficiary, PWs-1 and 3 his own relatives were present all along with him. Thus, the attesting witnesses are very well known beneficiaries. It was PW-1 who accompanied deceased as - 44 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12536-DB RFA No. 100109 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100149 of 2022 per his own evidence though deceased was suffering from severe cancer and experiencing pain and at that time, the said Will came in existence. Even as per the evidence of defendants, deceased was immobilized and he had to move out of the house only with the help of defendant No.1 his wife. If that is so, the very presence of the deceased at the time of execution of the Will is a suspicious circumstance brought on record by defendants. Moreso plaintiff No.2 has taken prominent part in execution of the Will Ex.P.1 which confers on him a substantial benefit of getting the entire half share of the deceased Ramchandra Gopala Bhat. This itself is a big suspicious circumstance as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in NIRANJAN UMESHCHANDRA JOSHI VS. MRUDULA JYOTI RAO4. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SURENDRA PAL VS. SARASWATI ARORA5 that “ Where propounder takes prominent part in the execution of Will which confers on him a substantial ORDER a. b. Appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed. The common judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.221/2006 and O.S.No.58/2008 by the Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur, is affirmed. Send back the Trial Court records along with copy of the judgment forthwith. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2