Judgment · High Court

Smt. Indrawwa dfo Shetteppa Kadakol. Age: 58 years, 0cc.; Household, Rio Harijan Gaul, Gokak-.591 307, Dist. Belgaum. Shekhar sb Shetteppa Kadakol, Age: 54 years, 0cc.: Household, Rio Harijan Galli, Gokak-591 307, Dist. Belgaum. Vaijayanthimala, Smt. Vaishanti Dio Shetteppa Kadakol, Age: 42 years, 0cc.: Household, R/o Harijan Galli, Gokak-591 307. Dist. Belgaum.

(By Sri Ravi S. Balikai, Advocate) AND:

3. City Municipal council, Gokak, Represented by its Commissioner. Gokak-591 307, Dist. Belgaum. State of Karnataka represented by Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum-590 001. The Tahasildar, Gokak, Gokak-591 307. Dist. Belgaum. - Appellants

Maruti Lagamappa Dasharath 4 to 6 are sb Basappa kadakol, age; 57, 53 and 51 years. 0cc.; Agriculture, Rio Shivapur-591 304, Tal,; Gokak. Dist. Belgaum.

Smt. Godavva w/o rappa Nadavinamani. Age; 59 years, 0cc.; Household work, Rio Sameerwadi — 581 321, Tal.; Mudhol, Dist. Bagalkot. Smt. Mahadevi w/o Shivappa Aiwale, Age; 48 years, 0cc.: household work, R/o Meerapur — 591 201, Tal.: Chikkodi, Dist. Belgaum. Smt. Parvati w/o Basappa Harijan, Age: 60 years, 0cc.; household work, R/o Sameerwadi — 581 321, Tal.: Mudhol, Dist. Bagalkot.

Ravi s/c Sumitra Kadakol @ Musalmari, Age: 39 years, 0cc.; service, R/o Harijan Galli. Gokak-591 307. Dist. Belgaum. - Respondents This appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC. against the judgement & decree dated 11.12.2007 passed in R.A. No. 7/2006 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gokak. etc. This RSA coming on for admission this day. the Court delivered the following:

3. JUDGEMENT

The appeal is heard for admission. This is the second appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below.

3. The suit filed for declaration that plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are the legal heirs of deceased Shettavva and for injunction restraining defendant no. 1 from contending that she is the legal heir of deceased Shettavva. The relief is also sought that the alleged Will dated 15.111988 executed by deceased Shettavva in favour of defendant no. 1 is illegal. void ab initio,

For better understanding, the genealogy of the family is produced by the learned Advocate for the appellant. The same is perused. V ) Adveppa, the propositus had got three children namely Advevva, Uddappa and Basappa. The plaintiff defendants are the children and grand children of Adveppa and Basappa. Udappa’s wife is Shettavva. Uddappa and Shettavve died issueless. Shettavva wife of Uddappa died on

16.051992. Prior to her death she executed a WillExD26 dated 15.11.1998 in favour of Smt. Lalitha (defendant no. 1), who is none other than the granddaughter of Shettavva’s brother. The said Will is a disputed Will in question. Defendant no. 1 claims to be the legal representative of deceased Shettavva pursuant to the said Will-ExD.26. On the other hand, the plaintiff as well as defendant nos. 2 to 10 contend that they are the legal representatives.

In order to prove the Will, defendant no. 1 examined two witnesses as D.W.2 and 3 who are the attestors. Defendant no. 4 is the scribe of the Will. All these witnesses have clearly supported the execution of the Will by deceased Shettavva in favour of Lalitha. Both the Courts below on evaluation of the

5. material on record have concluded that their evidence is credible. Though they were cross examined at length. evidence was not shaken. In this view of the matter the Courts below have rightly held that the Will is duly proved Even otherwise, suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will. The material on record more particularly Ex.D.27 clarifies that defendant no. 1 was mentioned as a nominee of the deceased Shettavva in her service records. Ex.D.27 is the Municipal Service Register. Deceased Shettavva was a Group D employee. She had named defendant no. 1 as her nominee. Earlier to that, the mother of defendant no. 1 was appointed as a nominee. After the death of first defendant’s mother, deceased Shettavva had made nomination in favour of defendant no. 1.

6. Ex.D.1 is the ration card which shows that deceased Shettavva was residing with defendant no. 1 with her family members. Defendant no. 1 granddaughter of Shettavva’s brother. Since Shettavva did not have issues and as her husband has died she might have .6 come back to her parents place and started residing with them. Be that as it may, since the Will is proved as per law and as there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will in question, the Courts below have rightly concluded that defendant no. I the legal representative of deceased Shettavva as per the Will and she is entitled to the service benefits of Shettavva. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The matter fully rests on appreciation of evidence only which is already been done by the Courts below. Hence no interference is called for. Appeal fails and it is dismissed without being admitted. Sd/ JUDGE