Suit for partition and separate possession of a 1/6th share in a Bangalore property was dismissed by the trial court, which upheld a registered Will of 1986 bequeathing the property to the fifth defendant. In appeal, the High Court found the Will duly proved by the attesting witness and no suspicious circumstances, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
R.F.A.No.1781/2011
BETWEEN :
SRI N.VENKATESH S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O No.431/B, 1ST BLOCK, 10TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI N.D.ONKARAPPA, ADV.)
AND :
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT No.1, 12TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003
5. SRI K.M.SHIVAKUMAR SINCE DECEASED HIS LRs.
5(b) KUMARI ASWINI D/O LATE N.SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. RESPONDENT No.5(a) & 5(b) ARE R/AT No.121, OLD No.15, 1ST FLOOR 1ST MAIN, Dr. RAJAKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29.03.2016.) …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.BHARATHI NAGESH, ADV. FOR R-5(a) & (b); NOTICE TO R-1 TO R-4 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.07.2011 PASSED IN O.S.No.2356/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff/appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2011 passed in OS.No.2356/2009 by the XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City ['Trial Court' for short].
referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
East to West 85 feet and North to South 23 + 43/2 feet consisting of ground and first floor premises bounded on East by Dr.Rajkumar Road, West by property No.16, North by 14th cross road and south by property No.14.
consisting of ground floor and first floor has been constructed in the suit property. As the joint family was grown, the members of the joint family started residing separately. His parents late Sri.K.M.Narayanaswamy and late Smt.Munithayamma were residing with defendant No.5. During the lifetime of his father, there was some settlement in the family, under which it was agreed that another house shall be purchased in the name of the plaintiff for his residential purpose. But due to ill-health of his father, he could not purchase any house. Even after the death of his father, defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 had promised that out of their funds, they will purchase a house in the name of the plaintiff for residential purpose but failed to do so. Defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 are residing in separate portion of the suit property, some portion of suit property was given for rent. The rents were collected earlier by his father and now defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5
are collecting from the tenants. But, they are not sharing the same with the plaintiff.
instituted a suit in O.S.No.10638/1988 against his father, praying for relief of partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family property including the suit property which came to be dismissed. Further on RFA No.112/1992 preferred before the Hon’ble High Court, the same came to be partly allowed. Later his uncle had purchased his father’s share in another joint family property for consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-, neither during the lifetime of his father nor after his death, no share has been given in the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff.
schedule property. Even though late K.M.Narayanaswamy had the intention to effect
partition, he was prevented by defendant No.5 who had controlled him by keeping him in his residence. It is stated that the schedule premises consists of six shop premises having ground and first floors and residential portions. One shop premises is let out and it is yielding a sum of Rs.10,000/- as rent and another shop premises along with residential portion in the first floor is in the occupation of the defendant No.4, one shop in the occupation of defendant No.1 and the rest of the premises is in the occupation of defendant No.5. The defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 with an intention to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff have chosen not to effect partition. The katha of the suit schedule property has been changed in the name of the defendant No.5 misrepresenting the Corporation Authorities which has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff recently or on the enquiry made by him with the Corporation Authorities. Pursuant to which, the plaintiff was constrained to take legal action against defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 for not
effecting partition thereby giving a share in the suit property. Accordingly, notices were issued. After the receipt of the legal notice, defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 have jointly issued reply notice whereby contending that the suit property has been transferred in the name of the defendant No.5 as per the Will executed by late Sri.K.M.Narayanaswamy which is his self acquired property and the plaintiff has already obtained his share and the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- paid by late K.M.Narayanaswamy to the plaintiff. On these set of pleadings, the plaintiff has sought for the following reliefs:
1] For partition of the suit property into six equal shares thereby allotting 1/6th share to the plaintiff
2] To pass an order of consequential injunction to restrain the defendant No.5 from not to create third party charge over the suit schedule property.
3] To award cost of the proceedings
4] To pass such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the above said circumstances and situation of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity.
Nos.2 and 3 have failed to appear before the Court and hence they were placed exparte. Defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 have appeared through their counsel. Defendant No.5
has filed written statement and the same has been adopted by the defendant Nos.1 and 4 by filing a memo to that effect.
by the defendant No.5 is that suit property was the self acquired property of his father late Sri.K.M. Narayanaswamy, who has executed a registered will dated 18.08.1986 bequeathing entire suit schedule property in
his favour. Hence, after the death of his father,
defendant No.5 has become the absolute owner of the suit property. The relationship with the plaintiff and the other defendants as averred by the plaintiff in the plaint has been admitted.
the self-acquired property of his father late
Sri.K.M.Narayanaswamy. His uncle Surappa had
purchased his father’s share in another property for consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- but the said amount was taken by plaintiff himself and utilized the same for his family purpose. Subsequent to the Will executed by Sri.K.M.Narayanaswamy in favour of the defendant No.5, he [defendant No.5] has become absolute owner of the suit property. Plaintiff has no right to claim any share in the suit property.
1] Whether plaintiff proves that suit property is joint family property consisting of himself and defendants?
2] Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property?
3] Whether defendant No.5 proves that suit property was self-acquired property of his father late Sri.K.M.Narayanaswamy?
4] Whether defendant No.5 proves that his father late Sri.K.M.Narayanaswamy by executing a registered Will dated 18.08.1986 bequeathed suit property in his favour and hence, he has become absolute owner of the same?
5] Whether the Court fee paid by plaintiff on his plaint is proper and sufficient?
6] Whether plaintiff entitled to the relief sought for?
7] What decree or order?
documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P6. Defendant No.5 was examined as DW1 and Sri.Ashwathanarayana Reddy was examined as DW2, 16 documents were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D16.
- 13 -
in the Negative, issue Nos.3 and 4 in the Affirmative, issue No.7 was answered dismissing the suit instituted by the plaintiff.
the directions of the defendant No.5, the said witness has tendered evidence to help the defendant No.5. It was argued that the Trial Court has not rightly analyzed the genuineness of the Will in a right perspective as the contents of the said document has number of corrections and strikeouts and the scribe being a practicing Advocate readily available has not been examined by the defendant No.5 and the Trial Judge did not address on this point, merely dismissed the suit believing the testimony of the attesting witness. The signature appearing on the Will is totally different from the signature put by the witness during evidence in his deposition and the same has been candidly admitted by the said witness DW2, the Trial Court has not adjudicated upon the same. The promise made by the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 that a separate house would be purchased to the residence of the plaintiff as per the desire of the late K.M.Narayanaswamy not being fulfilled, the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit
- 15 -
for partition as prayed for. The Ex.D3 was in the custody of defendant No.5 and Katha of the property was changed in his name during the lifetime of K.M.Narayanswamy. The said conduct of the defendant No.5 would indeed shrouds a suspicion regarding the execution of the Will by the deceased K.M.Narayanaswamy in favour of defendant No.5.
Sri.Raghu Kumar V/s. Smt.Parvathi and Others, [ILR 2010 KAR 3552] .
defendant No.5 – Shivakumar died on 16.12.2013 during the pendency of the present appeal. He has left a Will bequeathing the suit property in favour of V.Shankar son of the plaintiff and others. O.S.No.7952/2019 is pending before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru in this regard.
by the learned counsel Smt.Bharathi Nagesh. Despite service of notice on respondent Nos.1 to 4, they remained unrepresented.
“Whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff?”
framed seven issues as aforesaid. In order to seek for partition, it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish that the suit property is a joint family property. As could be seen from the records, late Sri.K.M.Narayanaswamy the father of the plaintiff and defendants had acquired the suit property which was then an open site through a registered sale deed dated 04.09.1988 executed by the Bengaluru Development Authority. The testimony of
PW1 indicates that the suit property is the self acquired property of late K.M.Narayanaswamy who died intestate and the alleged Will at Ex.D3 is concocted document. Further, there was family settlement in which the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 agreed to purchase another residential house in his name for his residence. But, despite the repeated requests and demand made by him, no partition has been effected in the joint family property. It is the specific defence of the defendant No.5 who was examined as DW1 that the suit property is the self-acquired property of his father late Sri.K.M.Narayanaswamy who has bequeathed the same to him through a registered Will dated 18.08.1986. Hence, after the death of his father, he has become absolute owner of the suit property. In order to prove the execution of the Will, the same is marked as Ex.D3 and one attesting witness Sri.Ashwathanarayana Reddy was examined DW2. DW2 has identified Ex.D3 as well
as the signatures of the executant
Sri.K.M.Narayanaswamy and the signatures
of the attesting witness and the scribe on the said Ex.D3. DW2 has deposed that he was acquainted with Sri. K.M.Narayanaswamy who was running cement retail business under the name and style of ‘Shivakumar Traders’ at Kammanahalli main road, since he was into the business of construction and related activities and was regularly purchasing cement from Shivakumar Traders. As such, he had developed rapport with Sri. K.M.Narayanaswamy. He used to engage Sri. Rajanna Setty, Advocate in his cases since 1985. On the enquiry made by Sri. K.M. Narayanaswamy, as he was interested in drafting a Will and register the same, he introduced him to Sri. Rajanna Setty. He has categorically stated that he accompanied Sri. K.M.Narayanaswamy to the Sub-Registrar office at his request where Sri. Rajanna Setty brought the typed Will. Sri. K.M.Narayanaswamy and
- 19 -
Sri C.Joseph subscribed signatures before him as testator and witness respectively. He has put his signature as an attesting witness, Ex.D3 was executed
by Sri. K.M. Narayanaswamy in presence of him, Sri. C.Joseph and Advocate Sri J.M.Rajanna Setty. Nothing positive is elicited in the cross examination. No rebuttal evidence is provided to discredit the evidence of DW2. As could be seen, Ex.D3 is the registered Will dated 18.08.1986 registered on 19.08.1986 in the office of the Sub-registrar, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. The said typed Will is duly signed by the executant K.M.Narayanaswamy and two attesting witnesses namely, 1]. C.Joseph, 2]. Ashwathanarayana Reddy. Variance in signature of DW2 in the Will, Ex.D3 and at the time of recording of evidence found if any, is obviously due to the long passage of time and the same is not fatal to the case.
legal requirements to prove the Will are – the Will should be reduced into writing, signed by the testator and shall be attested by two or more witnesses and at least one attesting witness shall be examined. In the case of H.Venkatachala Iyengar V/s. B.N.Thimmajamma and Others , reported in AIR 1959 SC 443 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has enunciated the principles regarding the proof of Will. In paragraph 18, 20 and 21, it is held thus:
“18. What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of wills? It is well-known that the proof of wills presents a recurring topic for decision in courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party propounding a will or otherwise making a claim under a will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in
- 21 -
deciding how it is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under s. 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Ss. 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a court of law. Similarly, Ss. 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind,
not being a minor, may dispose of his property by will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is meant by the expression " a person of sound mind " in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the will ? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will ? Did he put his signature to the will knowing what it contained ? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any
other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by s. 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the, prudent mind in such matters.
20. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder's case that the signature, in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or
unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter.
- 25 -
21. Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred, in some cases the wills propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decisions of English courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. It may be that the reference to judicial conscience in this connection is a heritage from similar observations made by ecclesiastical courts in England when they exercised jurisdiction with reference to wills; but any objection to the use of the word 'conscience' in this context would, in our opinion, be purely technical and
academic, if not pedantic. The test merely emphasizes that, in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is deciding a solemn question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by the testator who is no longer alive.”
23. The relevant paragraphs of Raghu Kumar
supra, are quoted hereunder for ready reference:
“10. A Will is a legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his property, which he desires to be carried into effect after his death. The essential characteristic of a Will is that it is a mere declaration of an intention so long as the testator is alive, a declaration that may be revoked or varied according to the variations in his intention, a disposition which requires the testator’s death for its consummation. Section 61 Indian Succession Act, 1925 [for short ‘the Act’] states that a Will or any part of a Will, the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion or by such
importunity which takes away the free agency of the testator is void. The mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in Section 63 of the Act.
19. The legal principles deducible from the aforesaid decisions are that generally a propounder of the Will has to prove the due and valid execution of the Will. If there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, the propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the Court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. Every circumstance is not a ‘suspicious circumstance’. The circumstance would be ‘suspicious’ when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected by a normal person. 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 point of time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that
- 28 -
he understood the nature and effect of dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. The mere fact that the Will is registered will not by itself is sufficient to dispel the suspicion regarding it. If the evidence as to registration shows that it was done in a perfunctory manner, that the officer registering the Will did not read it over to the testator or did not bring home to him that he was admitting the execution of a Will, the fact that the Will was registered would not be of much use. If the propounder himself takes a prominent part in the execution of the Will, which may confer on him substantial benefit, that is also treated as a suspicious circumstance attaching to the execution of the Will. If the testator denies the benefit under the Will to those who were the beneficiaries of his disposition also gives rise to a genuine doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will. Ultimately, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court by completely removing all legitimate suspicions. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances, the Court would
have to give effect to the Will even if the Will might be unnatural in the sense it has cut off wholly or in part near relations because a Will is nothing but an expression of the desire of the testator and therefore, may result in disinheritance of some and grant to another.”.
“Under the Act, the Will to be valid, should be reduced into writing, signed by the testator and shall be attested by two or more witnesses and at least one attesting witness shall be examined. If these legal requirements are not found, in the eye of law there is no Will at all. Therefore, the first step is that if the documents produced before the Court prima facie do not satisfy these legal requirements, the Court need not make any
- 30 -
further enquiry, insofar as its due execution is concerned and can negative a claim based on the said document. FURTHER HELD, the second step is that when the legal heirs are disinherited, the Court has to scrutinize the evidence with greater degree of care than usual – The third step would be to find out whether the testator was in a sound state of mind at the terms of executing the Will – The fourth step would be to find out whether there exists any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will – The fifth step is to consider whether the Will that is executing is in accordance with Section 63 of the Act read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act.”
than one of the son of deceased
Sri.K.M.Narayanaswamy. The defendant No.5 was
residing along with the testator in the suit property. It is admitted by the plaintiff in the cross-examination that his uncle Surappa has filed O.S.No.10638/1988 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru praying for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property. In the said proceedings, the suit property is held to be the self-acquired property of his father, further confirmed in the appeal filed before the High Court. The plaintiff has admitted that his father has provided good education to all his children, defendant No.1 is a Chartered Accountant; defendant No.4 is working as Chief Engineer; defendant No.5 is doing business in the suit property and the plaintiff is a B.Com graduate. It is the candid admission of the plaintiff that his marriage took place in 1981 when he was at the age of 23 years and it was love marriage, from the date of marriage, he was residing separately,
though he has denied the suggestion that his father was against his marriage.
examined as DW2. All the parameters required to prove the Will i.e., the Will to be signed by the testator, attested by two or more witness and at least one witness to be examined are fulfilled.
was residing with the deceased K.M.Narayanaswamy and taking care of him and his mother. There is no iota of evidence to even presume that the testator was not in a sound state of mind at the time of executing the Will.
The will was executed on 18.08.1986 whereas the testator died on 16.04.2006 i.e., after about 20 years. There is no suspicious circumstances in the execution of the Will. Merely for the reason that there are certain strikeouts made in the registered Will, it cannot be
presumed to be surrounded by suspicious
circumstances. On in-depth analysis of the registered Will, we are of the considered view that some striking/scored out found in the Will would not invalidate the Will. Moreover, the execution of the Will is in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
“63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition nor engaged in actual warfare, [or an airman so employed or engaged.] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules;-
appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will.
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affixed his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.”
“68. Proof of execution of document
required by law to be attested.- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for
- 35 -
the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence;
Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.”
- 36 -
Evidence Act deals with the proof of execution of documents required to be attested. In terms of the said
provision, a Will is a document which requires to be attested under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. It is settled principle that registration is not necessary for the Will but calling an attesting witness in proof of execution of the Will is mandatory.
- 38 -
plaintiff for partition in the suit property is wholly untenable. The finding of the Trial Court on all the issues is based on the oral and documentary evidence and is in conformity with law enunciated by the Hon’ble Courts as discussed above. In the circumstances, the judgment in Raghu Kumar , supra is of no assistance to the plaintiff.
find any irregularity or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree.
Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
All pending I.As. stand disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NC/PMR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit property was joint family property in which the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/6th share.
Whether the registered Will dated 18.08.1986 executed by the father in favour of defendant No.5 was duly proved.
Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit for partition, separate possession and injunction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H.Venkatachala Iyengar V/s. B.N.Thimmajamma and OthersRelied on¶22
H.Venkatachala Iyengar V/s. B.N.Thimmajamma and Others, AIR 1959 SC 443 · Who else cites this
Sri.Raghu Kumar V/s. Smt.Parvathi and OthersDistinguished¶23
Sri.Raghu Kumar V/s. Smt.Parvathi and Others, [ILR 2010 KAR 3552] · Who else cites this
Sri.J.T.Surappa and Another V/s. Satchidhanandendra Saraswathi Swamiji Public Charitable Trust and OthersRelied on¶24
Sri.J.T.Surappa and Another V/s. Satchidhanandendra Saraswathi Swamiji Public Charitable Trust and Others, [ILR 2008 KAR 2115]
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri N.Venkatesh S/o Late Narayanaswamy
Sri N.Krishnaiah S/o Late K.M.Narayanaswamy
Smt.Janakamma W/o Late Krishnappa
Smt.Lakshmidevi W/o Bandi Reddy
Sri N.Devaraj S/o Late K.M.Narayanaswamy
Sri K.M.Shivakumar (since deceased, through LRs)
S.Sujatha
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
