Partly allowed

Smt. C Rajeshwri Soni v. Sri. C. Lakshminarayana Soni

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2023RFA/5/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a regular first appeal regarding a partition suit dismissed by the trial court, the High Court set aside the dismissal for items 1-4. The Court upheld a Will giving item 5 to the respondent and confirmed a sale of item 6 by a deceased heir. Shares were awarded to appellants and other respondents in items 1-6 excluding the sold portion of item 6.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; impugned judgment set aside in part; suit decreed in part with specific shares allotted to parties in items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6.

Smt. C Rajeshwri Soni Vs Sri. C. Lakshminarayana Soni — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.5 OF 2020 (PAR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. C RAJESHWARI SONI W/O M NAGESH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.17E, RAJESHWARI NILAYA 8^TH CROSS, BANJARA PWD MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU AGARA BENGALURU-560 043

¶8

PREVIOUS ADDRESS: SMT C RAJESHWARI SONI W/O M NAGESH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.504, 1^ST FLOOR 1^ST MAIN, 4^TH CROSS BHUVANESHWARINAGAR R T NAGAR BENGALURU-560 032.

¶9

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT C ANITHA SONI W/O S SIDDAPPAJI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT ‘KUTEERA’ NO.1, ‘D’ BLOCK GANGA STREET, ANJANEYASWAMY LAYOUT THINDLU VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560 097.

¶11

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. C. LAKSHMINARAYANA SONI S/O B CHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT 615, 4^TH STAGE, 1^ST MAIN ROAD,

¶16

RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 098.

¶17

SRI K RENUKAPRASAD S/O KAMBALAIAH AGED MAJOR R/AT APARTMENT NO.2D HVS HOMES NO.4 15^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 055.

¶18

SMT PREMALATHA SHETTY D/O KASTURI SHETTY AGED MAJOR R/AT VARAMBALI VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA HOBLI, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 213.

¶19

SRI B S RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE B S SHAMACHARI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶20

SRI ANIL KUMAR S/O B S RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶21

KEERTHI D/O B S RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶22

LAKSHMI D/O B S RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶23

RADHA D/O B S RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶26

RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 ARE R/AT NO.18/1, 2^ND CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003.

¶27

SMT RUDRAMMA W/O MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶28

SRI M NAGARAJ S/O MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶29

RESPONDENTS AT SL NO. 9 AND 10 ARE R/AT NO.77, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, MANJUNATHANAGAR WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. K. SHRIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-9 & R-10; R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7 & R-8 ARE SERVED)

¶32

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W SEC.41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.988/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION.

¶33

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING , THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.988/2008 on the file of the XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions

¶36

Judge, Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.10.2019 whereby the said suit filed by the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶39

appellants – plaintiffs for declaration, partition and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶41

The material on record discloses that the appellants – plaintiffs are the daughters of late Chandran and Kamalamma, who expired on 15.12.1982 and 03.06.2004, respectively. The defendant No.1 – respondent No.1 is the brother of the plaintiffs and they had one more sister, Prasannalakshmi Soni, who expired prior to the suit leaving behind her husband and children, who are arrayed as respondent Nos.4 to 8 – defendant Nos.4 to 8 in the suit. The plaintiffs had one more brother, Raju Soni, who died unmarried and without leaving behind any issues prior to the suit.

¶42

The defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the alienees in respect of item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule immovable properties while defendant Nos.9 and 10 are alienees in respect of item No.6 of the suit schedule immovable properties.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶45

The plaintiffs contended that item Nos.1 to 4 were the

¶46

separate and self acquired properties of their father Chandran and upon him dying intestate on 15.12.1982 and upon their mother Kamalamma also dying on 03.06.2004, the said item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule immovable properties are to be divided equally between the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.4 to 8 by granting them 1/4^th share each in the said properties. It was contended that insofar as item Nos.5 and 6 of the suit schedule immovable properties owned and possessed by their mother Smt. Kamalamma, were concerned, even these properties were liable to be divided by granting them equal 1/4^th share each in these properties also and the alleged Will dated 09.08.2002 said to have been executed by her was not binding upon the plaintiffs. It was therefore contended that the suit was to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for by them.

¶47

The defendant No.1 contested the suit and filed his

¶48

written statement disputing and denying the claim of the plaintiffs. Though he admitted that items Nos.1 to 4 belonged to his father Chandran and item Nos.5 and 6 belonged to his mother Kamalamma, it was contended that she had executed her

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶51

registered last Will and testament dated 09.08.2002 under which item Nos.1 to 5 had been bequeathed by her in favour of defendant No.1. It was contended that item No.6 had been bequeathed equally by Kamalamma in favour of plaintiffs and deceased Prasannalakshmi, wife and mother of defendant Nos.4 to 8. It was also contended that the said Prasannalakshmi had sold her portion in item No.6 in favour of defendant Nos.9 and 10 vide registered Sale Deed dated 22.11.2006 and as such, the plaintiffs did not have any right over the suit schedule immovable properties and the Court fee paid was highly insufficient, suit was barred for nonjoinder of parties and by limitation and was liable to be dismissed.

¶52

The defendant No.2 filed his written statement reiterating the defence of the defendant No.1 and also contended that the said defendant No.1, who was the owner of item Nos.1 to 4 had sold the said properties in favour of his mother Smt.Parvathamma vide registered Sale Deed dated 14.07.1995. It was contended that the said Parvathamma sold portion of item Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.3 and gifted the remaining portion in favour of defendant No.2 vide Gift Deed dated 15.07.1996. It was therefore contended that the claim of the

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶55

plaintiffs over item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule immovable properties was liable to be rejected.

¶56

The defendant Nos.4 to 8 who are the husband and children of deceased Prasannalakshmi supported the claim of the plaintiffs and also sought for their share in the suit schedule immovable properties.

¶57

The defendant Nos.9 and 10 disputed and denied the claim of the plaintiffs and reiterated the defense of defendant No.1. It was contended that item No.6 of the suit schedule immovable properties which belonged to Kamalamma, mother of the parties was bequeathed equally in favour of her three daughters viz., plaintiffs and deceased Prasannalakshmi. Under registered Sale Deed dated 22.11.2006, the said Prasannalakshmi sold her portion of item No.6 to extent of 20’ x 100’ in favour of defendant Nos.9 and 10, who accordingly became the absolute owner of the said property. It was therefore contended that the claim of the plaintiffs was liable to be rejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶58

Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶61

“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that Sri Chandra was the full and absolute owner of item Nos.1 to 4 properties?

¶62

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that Smt.Kamalamma was the full and absolute owner of item Nos.5 and 6 properties?

¶63

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in joint possession of the schedule properties?

¶64

4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that due execution of registered Will dated 1.12.1988 and revocation of said Will under a Will dated 18.7.1992?

¶65

5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the alleged Will dated 9.8.2002 is a fabricated document?

¶66

6. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the alienations made by defendant No.1 are not binding on her?

¶67

7. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that Smt.Parvathamma has bequeathed item Nos.1 and 2 properties in his favour under a registered will dated 15.7.1996?

¶68

8. Whether the valuation of the suit is proper and Court fee paid is sufficient?

¶69

9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief’s claimed?

¶70

¶71

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶72

Addl. Issues

¶73

1. Whether the defendant Nos.9 and 10 proves that they are bonafide purchaser of item No.6 property?

¶74

2. Whether the suit is barred by Limitation

¶75

Act?

¶76

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed executed by Prasanna Lakshmi in favour of defendant No.9 and 10 in respect of eastern property of item No.6 of suit schedule property measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 100 feet is not binding on plaintiffs?

¶77

4. Whether the defendant No.9 and 10 prove that they are the bonafide purchasers of the eastern portion of the property of item No.6 of suit schedule property measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 100 feet?

¶78

5. Whether there is cause of action to file the

¶79

suit?”

¶80

Plaintiff No.2 examined herself as PW1 and exhibits

¶81

Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 examined themselves as DW1 and DW2.

¶82

One Sri. Lokesh said to be the attesting witness to the Will dated 09.08.2002 said to have been executed by Smt. Kamalamma, was

¶83

10 -

¶84

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶85

examined as DW3 and the defendant No.10 examined himself as DW4. On behalf of the defendants, documentary evidence at exhibits D1 to D54 were marked.

¶86

After hearing the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to answer all the issues against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants and accordingly, dismissed the suit by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which is assailed in the present appeal.

¶87

After having heard the learned counsel of the parties, the following points arise for consideration in the present appeal.

¶88

(i) Whether the defendant Nos.1, 2, 9 and 10 established that Smt. Kamalamma had executed her last Will and testament dated 09.08.2002 in respect of the suit schedule immovable properties?

¶89

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule immovable properties ?

¶90

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in item No.5 of the suit schedule immovable property?

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶93

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a share

¶94

in item No.6 of the suit schedule immovable property?

¶95

Reg. Point No.(i):

¶96

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaintiffs specifically contended that their mother Kamalamma had executed a registered Will dated 01.12.1988, which was revoked by her subsequent last Will and testament dated 18.07.1992, which bequeathed the suit schedule immovable properties in favour of all the parties including the plaintiffs. It was contended that the defendant No.1 had fabricated one more Will dated 09.08.2002, which was not executed by Kamalamma nor created any rights in the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant No.1. The said plea of the plaintiffs, which were supported by defendant Nos.4 to 8 was seriously disputed and denied by the defendant No.1, who propounded the said Will and specifically contended that Kamalamma had executed the said Will dated 09.08.2002, which was her last Will and testament under which item Nos.1 to 5 had been bequeathed in favour of defendant No.1 while item No.6 had been bequeathed equally in favour of plaintiffs and their sister Prasannalakshmi by dividing the said property into three portions.

¶97

12 -

¶98

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶99

14.1. The defendant No.1 produced the said registered Will

¶100

of Kamalamma as Exhibit D1 and one of its attesting witnesses, Lokesh was examined as DW3. In this context, a perusal of the evidence of DW3 including his cross-examination will indicate that the said witness has not only spoken about the valid and due execution as well as attestation of the Will at Ex.D1 but also about the testamentary capacity of Kamalamma including the fact that she possessed sound disposing state of mind at the time of the Will. The evidence of DW3 and the evidence of defendant No.1 – DW1 and the other material on record also establish that there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Will at Ex.D1, which was a registered document. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court recorded a categorical finding of fact that the defendant No.1 had proved the aforesaid Will dated 09.08.2002 in accordance with law, i.e., Section 68 of the Evidence Act r/w Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and that the plaintiffs had not proved that the Will was a fabricated document as contended by them by taking note of the unequivocal and unambiguous admission in the cross-examination of PW1 regarding the said Will and the signature of Kamalamma, which was admitted by PW1. In fact, it was only after PW1 admitted the

¶101

13 -

¶102

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶103

said Will in her cross-examination including the signature of Kamalamma that the Will was marked as Ex.D1 and her signature as Ex.D1(a). Accordingly, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.5 and 6 in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs thereby upholding the Will executed by Kamalamma as her last Will and testament. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.4 and 5 as hereunder:

¶104

“ 9. Issue Nos.4 & 5:- Since these issues require common discussion, these issues are taken up together for discussion. The plaintiffs in the plaint have specifically contended that Smt. Kamalamma during her life time had executed a Will dated 18.7.1982 and bequeathed the properties in favour of plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.4 to 8, that defendant No.1 being eldest member of the family, after the death of their father, was managing, cultivating and looking after the properties, that he was postponing the process of partition in the suit schedule property with one pretext or the other when demanding for partition, that they recently came to know that defendant No.1 executed sale deeds in respect of portions of suit schedule property in favour of Smt.Parvathamma who subsequently transferred the property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 specifically taken the contention that Smt.Kamalamma had executed a Will on 1.12.1988 and same was cancelled and one more Will was executed on 18.7.1992, that again she had cancelled the said Will and

¶105

14 -

¶106

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶107

executed another Will on 9.8.2002 bequeathing the item Nos.4 and 5 of suit schedule property in favour of all her children. The defendant No.1 being the elder brother of plaintiffs has specifically admitted the execution of Will by their mother Kamalamma on 1.12.1988 and revocation of the said Will on 18.7.1992. The execution of the Will dated 1.12.1988 and 18.7.1992 are not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to the plaintiffs to prove due execution of those Wills.

¶108

10. The plaintiffs in the plaint have taken the specific contention that the defendant No.1 got created the Will dated 9.8.2002 said to be executed by their mother, that the said Will is fabricated document and their mother had not executed the said Will. On the other hand, in para 12 of the written statement of defendant No.1 he has specifically pleaded about the due execution of the Will dated 9.8.2002 by Smt.Kamalamma in respect of item Nos.5 and 6 of plaint schedule property and he has also pleaded that after her death the said Will had been acted upon and their sister Smt.Prasanna Lakshmi was suffering from cancer and she sold the property acquired by her under the Will measuring 100’x20’ in site No.6 at Laggere Village Yeshwantpur village to Smt.M.Rudramma and Nagaraju, they are defendant Nos.9 and 10 in this suit. Smt.M.Rudramma and Nagaraju have purchased the property bequeathed in favour of Smt.Prasanna Lakhsmi under the registered sale deed dated 22.11.2006.

¶109

11. The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their contention got the plaintiff No.2 examined as P.W.1. They have also got 12 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to P.12.

¶110

15 -

¶111

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶112

The P.W.1 in her examination-in-chief has reiterated the plaint averments. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1, 2, 9 & 10 thoroughly cross-examined the P.W.1 regarding the claim of the plaintiffs and their defence. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 could take the admissions from P.W.1. In the cross-examination P.W.1 has specifically admitted the Will dated 9.8.2002 and through her, the Will came to be exhibited as Ex.D.1. She has also identified the signature of her mother in the Ex.P.1 Will and the signature is marked as Ex.D.1(a). Since P.W.1 has clearly admitted the due execution of the Will, nothing more is required regarding the due execution of the Will dated 9.8.2002 executed by the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. According to the pleadings of the defendants the learned counsel for the defendants have also could get admission from P.W.1 that after the death of Smt.Kamalamma property sold the property bequeathed to her share to defendant Nos.9 and 10 under the registered sale deed dated 22.11.2006. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have also changed the khata after the property allotted to their shares in Ex.D.1 Will. The admission of P.W.1 itself clearly establish that soon after the death of Kamalamma the Will had been acted upon and the legatees under the Will have taken the possession of the property bequeathed in their favour and started to enjoy the property as the absolute owners of the said properties. Therefore, it is clear that though the plaintiffs in their pleadings have disputed the execution of the Will dated 9.8.2002 by their mother Kamalamma clearly admitted in during the course of crossexamination that their mother had executed Will as per

¶113

16 -

¶114

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶115

Ex.D.1 and it has been acted upon with the legatees under the Will. In view of the clear admission by P.W.1. No much evidence is required to hold that the Will dated 9.8.2002 is a genuine document and it has been acted upon with the legatees under the Will. Therefore, the contention taken by the plaintiffs that the Will dated 9.8.2002 is a fabricated document cannot be accepted. Therefore, issue Nos.4 and 5 are answered Negative.”

¶116

14.2. As can be seen from the aforesaid findings recorded in

¶117

the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record and came to the correct conclusion that the Will at Ex.D1 dated 09.08.2002 is a valid and genuine document. Upon reappreciation, re-evaluation and re-consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the said findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the Will dated 09.08.2002 executed by Kamalamma, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in the present appeal.

¶118

14.3 Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered by holding that the Will dated 09.08.2002 executed by Kamalamma has been proved by the defendant Nos.1, 2, 9 and 10, in accordance with law.

¶119

17 -

¶120

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶121

Reg. Point No.(ii):

¶122

As stated supra, the undisputed material on record discloses that item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule immovable properties were owned and possessed by Chandran, the father of the parties, who dies intestate on 15.12.1982 leaving behind his wife – Smt. Kamalamma, three daughters i.e., the plaintiffs and late Prasannalakshmi (represented by defendant Nos.4 to 8) and two sons, i.e., defendant No.1 and late Raju Soni, who died unmarried and issueless. There is no gainsaying the fact that by virtue of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt. Kamalamma, her three daughters and two sons became entitled to 1/6^th share each in item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule immovable properties. Upon the demise of Raju Soni, who expired unmarried and issueless, his undivided 1/6^th share would devolve upon the remaining heirs, who would consequently be entitled to 1/5^th share each in these properties.

¶123

15.1. A perusal of the Will dated 09.08.2002 executed by Kamalamma will indicate that though she was entitled to only 1/5^th share in item No.1, she purports to bequeath the entire item No.1 in favour of defendant No.1. It is needless to state that in the light of the undisputed fact that she was entitled to only 1/5^th share in

¶124

18 -

¶125

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶126

item No.1, the said bequest by Kamalamma would be valid only to an extent of her 1/5^th share in this property. It is also relevant to state that while plaintiffs would be entitled to 1/5^th share each in item No.1, the defendant No.1 would be entitled to 1/5^th share in this property. Similarly, defendant Nos.4 to 8 representing deceased Prasannalakshmi would be entitled to 1/5^th share in this property; so also, in addition to his own 1/5^th share in item No.1, the defendant No.1 in whose favour Kamalamma had executed the aforesaid Will dated 09.08.2002 would be entitled to an additional 1/5^th share in item No.1 and consequently, defendant No.1 would become entitled to 2/5^th share in item No.1 of the suit schedule immovable properties.

¶127

15.2. Insofar as item Nos.2 to 4 of the suit schedule immovable properties are concerned, the two plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 and deceased Prasannalakshmi (represented by defendant Nos.4 to 8) would be entitled to 1/4^th share each in these properties.

¶128

15.3. Accordingly, item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule immovable properties would have to be divided and partitioned by allotting shares to the parties as hereunder:

¶129

19 -

¶130

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶131

Item No.1:

¶132

a) Plaintiff No.1 – 1/5^th share

¶133

b) Plaintiff No.2 – 1/5^th share

¶134

c) Defendant No.1 – 2/5^th share

¶135

d) Defendant Nos.4 to 8 – 1/5^th share

¶136

Item Nos.2 to 4:

¶137

a) Plaintiff No.1 – 1/4^th share b) Plaintiff No.2 – 1/4^th share

¶138

c) Defendant No.1 – 1/4^th share

¶139

d) Defendant Nos.4 to 8 – 1/4^th share

¶140

15.4. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the Trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate the aforesaid facts and circumstances borne out from the material on record and proceeded to dismiss the suit in respect of item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule immovable properties and consequently, the impugned judgment and decree in this regard deserves to be set aside and the suit deserves to be decreed by allotting shares to the parties as stated supra.

¶141

15.5 Point No.(ii) is accordingly answered in favour of the appellants.

¶142

20 -

¶143

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶144

Reg. Point No.(iii):

¶145

The next point that arises for consideration is with regard to the claim of the plaintiffs in relation to item No.5 of the suit schedule immovable property. While dealing with point No.(i), I have already come to the conclusion that the Will dated 09.08.2002 executed by Kamalamma had been proved in accordance with law and that item No.5 was the separate and self acquired property of Kamalamma. A perusal of the aforesaid Will dated 09.08.2002 will indicate that the said property at item No.5 has been bequeathed absolutely in favour of the defendant No.1 and consequently, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant Nos.4 to 8 would be entitled to any share in this property. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs for partition of item No.5 of the suit schedule immovable property and the impugned judgment and decree being correct and proper does not warrant interference in the present appeal.

¶146

16.1. Accordingly, point No.(iii) is answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondent No.1 by holding that he is the absolute owner of item No.5 of the suit schedule properties

¶147

21 -

¶148

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶149

and that the appellants and respondent Nos.4 to 8 are not entitled

¶150

to any share in the said property.

¶151

Reg. Point No.(iv):

¶152

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that item No.6 of the suit schedule immovable properties comprises of site bearing No.6 carved out of Sy.No.9/1 measuring 60’ x 100’, which was owned and possessed by Kamalamma. Under the aforesaid Will dated 09.08.2002, Kamalamma bequeathed this property equally in favour of her three daughters viz., plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.2 and deceased Prasannalakshmi; as per the said Will, the eastern portion measuring 20’ x 100’ was bequeathed in favour of the Prasannalakshmi while the remaining two portions together measuring 40’ x 100’ were bequeathed in favour of the two plaintiffs. It is an undisputed fact that prior to filing the suit itself and during her lifetime, Prasannalakshmi had sold her eastern portion in favour of defendant Nos.9 and 10 vide registered Sale Deed dated 22.11.2006. It is also not in dispute that no portion of item No.6 has been bequeathed in favour of defendant No.1. It is therefore clear that while the eastern portion of item No.6 measuring 20’ x 100’ is owned and possessed absolutely by

¶153

22 -

¶154

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶155

defendant Nos.9 and 10, the remaining two portions together measuring 40’ x 100’ would have to be partitioned and divided between the two plaintiffs, who would be entitled to equal share of 20’ x 100’ each in this property and the suit would have to be decreed accordingly excluding the portion purchased by the defendant Nos.9 and 10.

¶156

17.1. The aforesaid facts and circumstances and material on

¶157

record will also indicate that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the remaining portion of item No.6 measuring 40’ x 100’ and consequently, even this finding recorded by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside.

¶158

17.2. Point No.(iv) is also answered partly in favour of the appellants by declaring that they are entitled to portions measuring 20’ x 100’ each in item No.6 of the suit schedule immovable properties excluding the portion measuring 20’ x 100’ purchased by defendant Nos.9 and 10.

¶159

17.3. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be partly allowed

¶160

23 -

¶161

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶162

and the suit of the plaintiffs deserves to be decreed in-part by

¶163

allotting shares to the parties as indicated hereinbefore.

¶164

In the result, I pass the following:

¶165

ORDER

¶166

(i) Appeal is hereby allowed-in-part. .

¶167

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 11.10.2019 passed in O.S.No.988/2008 by the XLIV Addl.

¶168

City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is hereby partly set aside.

¶169

(iii) Suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed.

¶170

(iv) Appellant No.1, appellant No.2, respondent No.1

¶171

and respondent Nos.4 to 8 jointly are declared to be entitled to 1/4^th share each in item Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties.

¶172

(v) Appellant No.1, appellant No.2 and respondent Nos.4 to 8 jointly are declared to be entitled to 1/5^th share each in item No.1 of the suit schedule properties.

¶173

(vi) Respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 is declared to be entitled to 2/5^th share in item No.1 of the suit schedule properties.

¶174

24 -

¶175

NC: 2023:KHC:46196 RFA No. 5 of 2020

¶176

(vii) It is declared that defendant Nos.9 and 10 –

¶177

respondent Nos.9 and 10 are jointly entitled to the eastern portion of item No.6 of the suit schedule immovable properties measuring 20’ x 100’.

¶178

(viii) It is further declared that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 are each entitled to the remaining portion of item No.6 of the suit schedule immovable properties measuring 20’ x 100’ each in the said property.

¶179

(ix) The suit of the plaintiffs and the claim of

¶180

defendant Nos.4 to 8 in respect of item No.5 of the suit schedule immovable properties is hereby rejected.

¶181

Sd/JUDGE

¶182

¶183

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Smt. C Rajeshwri Soni v. Sri. C. Lakshminarayana Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. C Rajeshwri Soni v. Sri. C. Lakshminarayana Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G C Jayamma Vs Superintendent Engineer

Sri Shankar Vs Smt Selvi S

The Superintending Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt Nagarathnamma

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited Vs Cosmic Motors India Private Limited

Susheela Vs Superintendent Engineer

Sri K Ramakrishna Vs Smt Rani Barui