Dismissed¶157

Yoganatha Rao v. Sri. Krishnoji Rao

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2026RSA/1301/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proof of Will; attesting witness; scribe; Section 63 Indian Succession Act 1925; Section 68 Indian Evidence Act 1872; suspicious circumstances; Will executed shortly before death; subsequent Will prevails over earlier Will; earlier Will not proved; unregistered panchayat parikath cannot convey title; beneficiary not examined; non-challenge by beneficiary as presumption of acceptance; testamentary succession versus inheritance; foster son; relationship irrelevant once Will proved; substantial question of law; Section 100 CPC; second appeal against concurrent findings; declaration and mandatory injunction; Channapatna; Ramanagara; Karnataka High Court.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the judgment and decree of the Courts below stand confirmed. ¶157

Yoganatha Rao Vs Sri. Krishnoji Rao — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the judgment and decree of the Courts below stand confirmed.

¶157

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below warrant interference by the High Court under Section 100 CPC, i.e., whether any substantial question of law arises from the findings on the Will dated 12.06.1997 (Ex.P5) and the defendants' lack of title. +3 more

¶155

Court's answer

The concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below — that the Will dated 12.06.1997 (Ex.P5) is proved and valid and that the defendants had no title — do not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC, and no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶155

Ratio / Principle

Execution and attestation of the Will dated 12.06.1997 (Ex.P5) stood proved in strict compliance with law: PW.2 (attesting witness) and PW.3 (scribe) clearly deposed to its execution, signature of Sundara Bai and attestation, and DW.2 (a defence witness) admitted his own signature on the Will and that of the Testatrix.

¶136

Key takeaways

Mere proximity of the testatrix's death is not sufficient to doubt the execution of the Will where there is no evidence of coercion, fraud or undue influence and no challenge to her mental capacity; the alleged suspicious circumstances do not survive judicial scrutiny.ratio¶137
The earlier Will dated 08.08.1996 relied on by the defendants is not proved in accordance with law: the original Will was not produced, no attesting witness was examined, and the beneficiary Lakshman Rao was not examined.ratio¶142
It is well settled that a subsequent Will, if validly proved, supersedes the earlier Will; the defendants are not the direct beneficiaries under any Will.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (K.S. Hemalekha, J.), Regular Second Appeal No.1301 of 2020 (DEC/INJ), decided 18.03.2026 — Second appeal by the LRs of the deceased defendant against concurrent decrees in O.S. No.23/2007 (declaration of title and mandatory injunction for demolition) founded on a registered Will dated 12.06.1997 (Ex.P5) executed by Sundara Bai. Held: (i) execution and attestation of Ex.P5 were proved in strict compliance with law through the attesting witness (PW.2), the scribe (PW.3) and the admission of defence witness DW.2, satisfying Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (ii) mere proximity of the testatrix's death and absence of reference to an earlier Will are not, without evidence of coercion, fraud, undue influence or want of mental capacity, sufficient suspicious circumstances; (iii) the defendants' earlier Will dated 08.08.1996 was not proved — the original was not produced, no attesting witness was examined and the beneficiary Lakshman Rao was not examined — and the unregistered 'Panchayath Parikath' conferred no title; (iv) a validly proved subsequent Will supersedes an earlier Will, and Lakshman Rao's failure to challenge the subsequent Will (he having signed Ex.P5) raised a strong presumption that it was accepted and acted upon; (v) once a Will is duly proved, the plaintiff's relationship with the testatrix is irrelevant, title resting on testamentary succession rather than inheritance. No substantial question of law arose; the concurrent findings were left undisturbed under Section 100 CPC. Appeal dismissed; judgments and decrees of the Courts below confirmed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

YOGANATHA RAO

¶11

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.

¶12

SMT. SUMITHRA BAI W/O SRI LATE YOGANATHA

¶13

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶14

GOPINATH S/O SRI LATE YOGANATHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶15

(A1 IS THE LR OF DECEASED A2 AMENDED V/O DATED 04/02/2022)

¶16

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

HARISH RAO S/O SRI LATE YOGANATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶18

SRI SATHISH RAO S/O SRI LATE YOGANATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶19

SMT. VEENA BAI D/O SRI LATE YOGANATHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. LAKSHMI BAI D/O SRI LATE YOGANATHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶21

SMT. BHARATHI BAI D/O SRI LATE YOGANATHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

SMT. ASHA BAI D/O SRI LATE YOGANATHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶25

SMT. GEETHA BAI D/O SRI LATE YOGANATHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶26

SMT. PAVITHRA BAI D/O SRI LATE YOGANATHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶27

ALL ARE R/AT LALAGHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160.

¶28

…APPELLANTS

¶29

(BY SRI K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE; V/O. DATED 04/02/2022 A1 TO BE TREATED AS LR’s OF DECEASED A2)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SRI KRISHNOJI RAO ALLEGED S/O SUNDARA BAI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A LALAGHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, NOW R/AT NO.23, 16^TH CROSS, K.P. AGRAHARA, BHUWANESHWARINAGARA, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560023.

¶32

…RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SMT. T.P. VASUNDARA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.09.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.17/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.23/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA.

¶35

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

This regular second appeal is filed by the defendants

¶41

calling in question the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2020 passed in R.A. No.17/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, (‘First Appellate Court’ for short), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 passed in O.S. No.23/2007 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, (‘Trial Court’ for short) for declaration and mandatory injunction.

¶42

Plaint averments :

¶43

The plaintiff states that he is the ‘absolute owner of the schedule property by virtue of a registered Will dated 12.06.1997 executed by Sundara Bai.’ After her death on 09.08.1997, khata was mutated in his name and

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

he has been in lawful possession. It is stated that the defendants unauthorisedly encroached upon the ‘B’ schedule property (part of ‘A’ schedule property) and put up a temporary shed. It is stated that despite panchayat and demands, the defendants failed to vacate the property, thereby constraining the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction.

¶48

Written statement:

¶49

The defendants appeared and filed their written statement denying the plaintiff's title and possession and contended that Sundara Bai had earlier executed a Will dated 08.08.1996 in favour of Lakshman Rao, Son of Siddoji Rao, who is the brother of Sundara Bai and Lakshman Rao had subsequently transferred the property through a ‘panchayat parikath’ to the defendants. It is stated that the plaintiff is not the son of Sundara Bai and he has suppressed the material facts in this regard. It is submitted that the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The Trial Court, based on the pleadings, framed

¶54

the issues. In order to substantiate the claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, attesting witness to the Will was examined as PW.2 and the scribe as PW.3 and marked documents at Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, attesting witness to the earlier Will was examined as DW.2 and marked documents at Exs.D1 to D9.

¶55

The Trial Court, based on the pleadings and

¶56

appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding that:

¶57

i. The plaintiff proved the execution of the Will dated 12.06.1997 by examining the attesting witness and scribe (PW.2 and PW.3 respectively) and the Will executed in favour of the plaintiff satisfies the requirements of law.

¶58

ii. Even if the earlier Will as claimed by the defendant existed, subsequent Will prevails over the earlier Will.

¶59

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

iii. The defendants’ claim was rejected holding that

¶62

the earlier Will was not proved and the ‘panchayat parikath’, which is claimed to have been executed by the beneficiary of the earlier Will, namely, Lakshman Rao, was not a valid instrument to convey title.

¶63

iv. That the defendants have unauthorizedly constructed shed in ‘B’ schedule property and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession.

¶64

v. That the plaintiff proved title and possession and the Trial Court decreed the suit granting declaration and mandatory injunction for demolition.

¶65

In the appeal preferred by the defendants, the

¶66

First Appellate Court, being the last-fact finding Court, reappreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence and held that:

¶67

i. The validity of Will (Ex.P5) is proved in compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the

¶68

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and the admission of DW.2 was considered by the First Appellate Court.

¶72

ii. The earlier Will (Ex.D7) is not proved, as only a certified copy is produced, no attesting witness has been examined and no explanation has been offered for nonproduction of the original Will and hence, the said Will cannot be relied upon.

¶73

iii. That the ‘panchayat parikath’ is invalid, since it is an unregistered document and cannot confer title under law and its execution itself is doubtful.

¶74

iv. The beneficiary of the earlier Will, namely, Lakshman Rao was not examined and he himself has attested the subsequent Will which creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the earlier Will.

¶75

v. The First Appellate Court reaffirmed that the last Will prevails and found that there was no illegality or perversity and on proper appreciation of evidence, confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by which the defendants are before this Court.

¶76

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently

¶79

contends that the judgment of the Courts below are illegal,

¶80

perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law on the following grounds:

¶81

i. That the Courts below have erred in accepting the Will dated 12.06.1997 (Ex.P5) without properly considering the existence of the earlier Will dated 08.08.1996 (Ex.D7).

¶82

ii. It is contended that unless the earlier Will is expressly cancelled or revoked, the subsequent Will cannot automatically prevail.

¶83

iii. That the subsequent Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances:

¶84

a. It was executed just before two months prior to the death of the Testatrix.

¶85

b. There is no reference to the earlier Will in the subsequent Will.

¶86

c. No evidence has been placed on record to show that the Testatrix was in a sound disposing state of mind.

¶87

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

iv. The plaintiff has not clearly pleaded or proved his relationship with Sundara Bai and that the case was built on suppression of material facts, particularly regarding lineage and entitlement. It is contended that the plaintiff is not a natural heir and his claim is artificial and not bonafide .

¶90

v. That the earlier Will dated 08.08.1996 (executed in favour of Lakshman Rao) and based on the same, Lakshman Rao transferred the property through a ‘Panchayath Parikath’ in favour of the defendants and the Courts below have failed to properly consider this chain of title.

¶91

vi. The Courts below totally ignored the material discrepancies in the plaintiff’s evidence and the testimony of the witnesses has not been properly scrutinized. It is submitted that the findings are perverse and against the weight of evidence.

¶92

vii. It is submitted that the main issue was regarding the validity of the Will. But the Courts below

¶93

10 -

¶94

NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

wrongly focused on the ‘panchayat parikath’ instead of first deciding the validity of Ex.P5.

¶97

It is contended that the First Appellate Court being the last-fact finding Court has rejected the application under Order XLI Rule 27, thereby denying a fair opportunity. On these grounds, it is contended that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside.

¶98

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

¶99

plaintiff supports the concurrent findings and contends that:

¶100

i. The Will dated 12.06.1997 (Ex.P5) has been duly executed in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the attesting witness (PW.2) and the scribe (PW.3) have been examined and execution has been clearly established.

¶101

NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶102

11 -

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

ii. Even the defence witness (DW.2) has

¶105

categorically admitted the signature of the attestors and the execution of Will, which strengthens the plaintiff's case beyond doubt.

¶106

iii. That the earlier original Will dated 08.08.1996, has not been produced, no attesting witness has been examined, nor has the beneficiary been examined. Hence, the Will relied upon by the defendants has not been proved in accordance with law.

¶107

iv. The alleged ‘Panchayath Parikath’ is an unregistered document and is legally inadmissible to convey title and the defendants cannot claim ownership on basis of the said document. Mere proximity of the execution of a Will to the death of the testatrix is not sufficient to discard the Will, particularly in the absence of coercion, fraud or incapacity as pleaded and both the Courts have concurrently held in favour of the plaintiff based on proper appreciation of evidence, and no perversity or legal error has been demonstrated and no

¶108

12 -

¶109

NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

substantial question of law arises and the appeal deserves

¶112

to be dismissed.

¶113

This Court has carefully considered the

¶114

contentions urged and perused the material on record.

¶115

It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he derives the title under a registered Will dated 12.06.1997 (Ex.P5) executed by Sundara Bai. The family genealogical tree of the parties is culled out as under:

¶116

GENEALOGICAL TREE

¶117

SIDDOJI RAO

¶118

Sanjeev Rao Nimbalkar Venkata Rao Nimbalkar

¶119

1.Hanumantha Rao 2.Apaji Rao Hanumantha Rao Nimblkar Bhima Ro Nimbalkar 3.Bheema Rao 4.Venkoba Rao Sundara Bai (Wife) Yoganath Rao(Def)(Son)

¶120

5.Venkata Rao

¶121

Lakshmana Rao Krishnojio Rao Goapala Rao Rama Rao Janardhan Rao Gajendra Rao (Plaintiff)

¶122

13 -

¶123

NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

To prove a Will, the following requirements

¶126

must be satisfied:

¶127

i. The execution of the Will by the Testatrix.

¶128

ii. Attesting by at least two attesting witnesses as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

¶129

iii. Examination of at least one attesting witness as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶130

iv. The testatrix being in a sound disposing state of mind.

¶131

The plaintiff, in order to prove the Will dated

¶132

12.06.1997 (Ex.P5), has examined PW.2-the attesting witness, and PW.3-the scribe. Both witnesses have clearly and unequivocally deposed regarding the execution of the Will, the signature of Sundara Bai and its attestation in their presence. Significantly, DW.2 a defence evidence, has also admitted his signature on the Will as well as the signature of the Testatrix. Therefore, the execution and

¶133

14 -

¶134

NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

attestation of the Will stood proved in strict compliance with law.

¶137

The appellants contend that the Will was executed shortly prior to the death of the Testatrix and there was no reference to the earlier Will. However, mere proximity of death is not sufficient to doubt the execution of the Will, when there is no evidence of coercion, fraud, or undue influence placed on record, and no challenge to the mental capacity of the testatrix, the alleged suspicion must be real and supported by evidence. Hence, the alleged suspicious circumstances do not survive judicial scrutiny, which has been rightly considered by the Courts below.

¶138

The defendants rely on the earlier Will dated 08.08.1996 (Ex.D5) said to be executed in favour of Lakshman Rao. However, the original Will has not been produced, no attesting witnesses has been examined, nor

¶139

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

the beneficiary (Lakshman Rao) was examined. Hence, the

¶142

earlier Will is not proved in accordance with law.

¶143

It is also well settled that a subsequent Will, if validly proved, supersedes the earlier Will. The entire case of the defendants rests on a Will allegedly executed in favour of Lakshman Rao and transfer through a ‘Panchayath Parikath’. The defendants are not the direct beneficiaries under any Will. The alleged transfer is through an unregistered Panchayath document and there, is no valid legal conveyance of title. Thus, the defendants’ claim is derogative in nature and unsupported by any valid document, rendering it unenforceable in law.

¶144

It is also significant to note that Lakshman Rao, the alleged beneficiary under the Will, has not challenged the subsequent Will, nor asserted any independent right or title. This creates a strong assumption, presumption that the subsequent Will was accepted and acted upon and the defendants’ claim is only an afterthought. It is also

¶145

16 -

¶146

NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶147

HC-KAR

¶148

relevant to note that Lakshman Rao has affixed his signature to the Will (Ex.P5) dated 12.06.1997, which is considered by the First Appellate Court while reappreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence.

¶149

Even assuming that there is a dispute regarding relationship, the title of the plaintiff is based on testamentary succession and not on inheritance. Hence, the question of relationship becomes irrelevant once the Will is duly proved. However, as held by the First Appellate Court, there is a mention in the Will that the beneficiary is the foster son of Sundara Bai. However, that may be the intention which has to be borne from the Will that the Testatrix intended to bequeath the suit schedule property in favour of the beneficiary.

¶150

The First Appellate Court being the last-fact finding Court has re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence and answered the point framed for consideration in the negative against the appellants. Both

¶151

17 -

¶152

NC: 2026:KHC:16028 RSA No. 1301 of 2020

¶153

HC-KAR

¶154

the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence and the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below on the Will dated 12.06.1997 (Ex.P5), holding that it is proved and valid and that the defendants had no title,

¶155

does not warrant any interference by this Court under Section 100 CPC and no substantial question of law arises for consideration and hence, the following:

¶156

ORDER

¶157

i. The regular second appeal is hereby dismissed .

¶158

ii. The judgment and decree of the Courts below stand confirmed .

¶159

Sd/-

¶160

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶161

MBM

¶162

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below warrant interference by the High Court under Section 100 CPC, i.e., whether any substantial question of law arises from the findings on the Will dated 12.06.1997 (Ex.P5) and the defendants' lack of title.¶155
The court held
The concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below — that the Will dated 12.06.1997 (Ex.P5) is proved and valid and that the defendants had no title — do not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC, and no substantial question of law arises for consideration.ratio¶155
2.
Whether the Will dated 12.06.1997 (Ex.P5) was duly executed and proved, despite the alleged suspicious circumstances that it was executed shortly before the testatrix's death, made no reference to the earlier Will, and that the testatrix's sound disposing state of mind was not established.¶83
The court held
Execution and attestation of the Will dated 12.06.1997 (Ex.P5) stood proved in strict compliance with law: PW.2 (attesting witness) and PW.3 (scribe) clearly deposed to its execution, signature of Sundara Bai and attestation, and DW.2 (a defence witness) admitted his own signature on the Will and that of the Testatrix.ratio¶136
3.
Whether the earlier Will dated 08.08.1996 said to be executed in favour of Lakshman Rao was proved, and whether the 'Panchayath Parikath' executed on its basis conveyed title to the defendants.¶90
The court held
The earlier Will dated 08.08.1996 relied on by the defendants is not proved in accordance with law: the original Will was not produced, no attesting witness was examined, and the beneficiary Lakshman Rao was not examined.ratio¶142
4.
Whether the plaintiff's relationship with the testatrix Sundara Bai (lineage/foster son) affects his title and entitlement under the Will.¶89
The court held
Once the Will is duly proved, the question of the plaintiff's relationship with the testatrix becomes irrelevant, since his title rests on testamentary succession and not on inheritance.ratio¶149

Yoganatha Rao v. Sri. Krishnoji Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yoganatha Rao v. Sri. Krishnoji Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nalini Sushma M S Vs Mohammed Khadir Ur Rahman

Puttamma Vs Anna Bovi Dead by Lrs

M Rajashekar Vs the Commissioner

Sri Prabhakar Reddy Vs Smt Muniyallamma

Krishna Moolya Vs Sadashiv Bhat

Sri T S Mahadevaiah Vs Sri Bolashivanegowda