Dismissed¶110

Smt. Rathnamma v. Smt. Rathnamma

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2026RSA/63/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru) | NC 2026:KHC:3331 | RSA No. 63 of 2024 (DEC/INJ) | Ravi V Hosmani J | Judgment dated 21.01.2026 | Proof of Will; Section 63 and Section 68 Indian Evidence Act; Indian Succession Act; legatee as sole witness (PW.1); due execution and attestation not established; no substantial question of law arose; second appeal dismissed along with I.A.No.1/2025; Sy.No.40/2 Thayaganadoddi village, Masthi hobli, Malur taluk, Kolar district; Will dated 24.07.1975; Sale Deed dated 23.07.1965 declared null and void in RSA No.629/1978; ex-parte decree in O.S.No.163/1994; O.S.No.417/2011; R.A.No.55/2015.

What did the court decide?

None — the second appeal and I.A.no.1/2025 were dismissed; the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below stand. ¶110

Smt. Rathnamma Vs Smt. Rathnamma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the second appeal and I.A.no.1/2025 were dismissed; the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below stand.

¶110

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proved the registered Will dated 24.07.1975 (Exhibit-P1), on which the suit for declaration of title was founded and which the defendants disputed, by producing the original and establishing due execution and attestation. +4 more

¶102

Court's answer

No substantial questions of law, including those proposed by the appellant, arise for consideration; consequently the second appeal was dismissed.

¶109

Ratio / Principle

Since this second appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff rested on Exhibit-P1, the registered Will dated 24.07.1975, which the defendants disputed in their written statement, it was incumbent on the plaintiffs to prove the Will by producing the original and establishing due execution and attestation.

¶102

Key takeaways

That requirement of law was not complied with: the only witness examined by the plaintiff was PW.1, the legatee plaintiff, so the requirements of Section 63 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Succession Act for proving a Will were not satisfied.ratio¶103
The dismissal of the suit by the trial Court and its confirmation in first appeal were precisely on the ground of this non-compliance, and were in accordance with law.ratio¶107

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal by plaintiff no.1 of O.S.No.417/2011 (II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur; suit for declaration of absolute ownership of, and injunction over, 'A' schedule property — Sy.No.40/2, Thayaganadoddi village, Malur taluk, Kolar district) challenging the decree dated 29.09.2023 in R.A.No.55/2015 (Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur) dismissing her first appeal and the decree dated 16.06.2015 dismissing the suit. Plaintiffs traced title to a registered Will dated 24.07.1975 (Exhibit-P1) by which Venkatagiriyappa bequeathed the western half of the land to plaintiffs' mother and her sisters, the eastern 01 Acre 09 guntas having been sold under registered Sale Deed dated 23.07.1965; prior rounds included O.S.No.134/1969 (dismissed), R.S.A.No.629/1978 wherein this Court moulded relief granting half share to each side and declared the Sale Deed null and void, the contested FDP No.10/1996, and an ex-parte decree in O.S.No.163/1994 relied upon by defendants no.2 and 3. HELD: (i) as the suit rested solely on the disputed Will, plaintiffs had to prove it by producing the original and establishing due execution and attestation; (ii) the only witness examined was PW.1, the legatee plaintiff, so the requirements of Section 63 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Succession Act were not complied with; (iii) dismissal of the suit and its confirmation in appeal were precisely on that ground and in accordance with law; (iv) no substantial question of law, including those proposed, arose. Appeal and I.A.No.1/2025 dismissed. — Ravi V Hosmani, J.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3331 RSA No. 63 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA D/O PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT THYAGANADODDI VILLAGE, MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

[BY SMT. POONAM N., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE SAMPANGIRAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶15

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

T R THIMMARAYAPPA S/O PATEL RAMASWAMY GOWDA DEAD BY LRS

¶17

2(a) SMT. SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, W/O LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABUT 62 YEARS, R/A CHALAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BALIGANAHALLI POST, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:3331 RSA No. 63 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

2(b) RAJAPPA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶22

R/AT THYAGANADODI VILLAGE, MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.

¶23

2(c) SMT. PADMAMMA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT HAMUDAGANDAHALLI VILLAGE, BERIKERE POST, SULAGIRI TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMILNADU - 635 001.

¶24

2(d) RAMESH S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT THYAGANADODI VILLAGE, MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.

¶25

2(e) SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT JADIGENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POT, HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶26

2(f) SMT. RAMAKKA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA W/O SAMPANGI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BMT LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶27

2(g) SMT. MANJAMMA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:3331 RSA No. 63 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

W/O BABU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT HAMUDAGANDAHALLI VILLAGE, BERIKE POST SULAGIRI TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMILNADU - 635 001.

¶32

2(h) SMT. SHARADHAMMA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA W/O NALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A HOSUR TOWN AND TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU - 635 001.

¶33

T R KEMPEGOWDA S/O LATE RAMASWAY GOWDA DEAD BY LRS

¶34

3(a) SMT. KASHAMMA W/O LATE T R KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶35

3(b) RAMMURTHY S/O LATE T R KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶36

3(c) VENKATESH S/O LATE T R KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶37

3(d) THYAGARAJU S/O LATE T R KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶38

3(e) SMT. PUSHPA D/O LATE T R KEMPEGOWDA W/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶39

ALL ARE RESIDING AT THYAGANADODI VILLAGE,

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:3331 RSA No. 63 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.

¶44

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O RAJAPPA D/O PILLAPA R/A SONNAPPANAHATTI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT

¶45

SMT. RAMAKKA W/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT THYAGANADODDI VILLAGE, MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST

¶48

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.09.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.55/2015 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.06.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.417/2011 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR.

¶49

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

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:3331 RSA No. 63 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶55

Challenging judgment and decree dated 29.09.2023

¶56

passed by Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Malur, in R.A.no.55/2015 and judgment and decree dated 16.06.2015 by II Additional Civil Judge, Malur, in O.S.no.417/2011, this second appeal is filed.

¶57

Smt.Poonam N., learned counsel for appellant

¶58

submitted that appeal was by plaintiff no.1 in O.S.no.417/2011 filed for relief of declaration of plaintiffs as absolute owners of 'A' schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' possession over 'A' schedule property. In plaint, it was stated that 'A' schedule property belonged to ancestors of plaintiffs and defendant no.1. It was stated, mother of plaintiff no.1 had sold eastern portion of suit schedule property i.e., an extent of 01 Acre 09 guntas to

¶59

father of defendants no.2 and 3 under registered Sale Deed dated 23.07.1965. Later, grandfather of plaintiff no.1 - Venkatagiriyappa bequeathed western half portion of 'A' schedule property to plaintiffs’ mother and her sisters under registered Will dated 24.07.1975 and after death of

¶60

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:3331 RSA No. 63 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Venkatagiryappa, plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property as absolute owners.

¶64

It was submitted, mother of defendant no.1 had filed OS no.134/1969 for declaration against Sale Deed dated 23.07.1965, which was dismissed. But, in RSA no.629/1978, this Court moulded relief and granted half share to each of parties and declared Sale Deed as null and void. Consequently, defendants no.2 and 3 lost their right, title and interest. Thereafter, when defendant no.1 filed FDP no.10/1996, plaintiffs opposed same. But, defendants no.2 and 3 contended that they had filed OS no.163/1994 for declaration and obtained ex-parte decree against plaintiffs. Even in said proceedings, this Court had held Sale Deed as null and void and ex-parte decree obtained by defendants no.2 and 3 as not binding on plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs had filed suit for declaration of their title in respect of 'A' schedule property.

¶65

On service of suit summons, defendants no.1 and 2 entered appearance. Defendant no.3 had died and though legal representatives were brought on record, they did not file written statement. In their written statement, defendants no.1

¶66

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:3331 RSA No. 63 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

and 2 denied relationship between parties, disputed sale deed dated 23.07.1965 and bequeathal in favour of plaintiffs under Will dated 24.07.1975. They also mentioned filing of suits, final decree proceedings as well as judgment passed by this Court. They specifically stated that they derived possession over eastern half of land measuring 01 Acre 09 guntas in Sy.no.40/2 from their father Patil Ramaswamygowda, who purchased same from mother of plaintiff no.1 under registered Sale Deed dated 23.07.1965. It was stated that proceedings in suit, final decree proceedings as well as judgment passed by this Court in RSA no.629/1978 had concluded in their favour and therefore, sought dismissal of suit.

¶70

5. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following: ISSUES:

¶71

1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties?

¶72

2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule properties?

¶73

3) Whether plaintiffs prove that the alleged interference by the defendants?

¶74

4) Whether the defendants prove that suit is barred by law of res-judicata?

¶75

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:3331 RSA No. 63 of 2024

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for?

¶79

6) What order or decree?

¶80

Thereafter, plaintiff no.1 deposed as PW.1 and got

¶81

marked Exhibits-P1 to P16. In rebuttal, defendant no.2 and another deposed as DWs.1 and 2 and Exhibits-D1 to D31 were got marked.

¶82

On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1 to 3 and 5 in negative; issue no.4 in affirmative and issue no.6 by dismissing suit. Aggrieved, plaintiff no.1 filed RA no.55/2015 on various grounds, based on which, first appellate Court framed following:

¶83

POINTS:

¶84

1) Whether the conclusion of the trial Court in dismissed the suit of the plaintiff is proper?

¶85

2) Whether the findings of the trial Court calls for interference by this Court?

¶86

3) What order?

¶87

After answering point no.1 in affirmative; point no.2

¶88

in negative, it answered point no.3 by dismissing appeal. Against concurrent findings, present appeal was filed.

¶89

¶90

NC: 2026:KHC:3331 RSA No. 63 of 2024

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

It was submitted, that plaintiffs were claiming right under registered Will of antiquity. It was submitted, boundary description of suit property in OS no.163/1994, referred to plaintiffs property on western side, establishing they were in settled possession under Will dated 24.07.1975. Such being case, trial Court and first appellate Court were not justified in holding that Will dated 24.07.1975 was not proved and in dismissing suit. It was contended there was improper appreciation and therefore following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration:

¶93

"1. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that, the plaintiffs has right, title and interest and possession to the extent of 1 Acre 9 guntas of land out of 2 Acre 19 guntas of land in Sy.no.40/2 of Thayaganadoddi village, Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk.

¶94

2. The Courts below have failed to consider that the defendants have obtained the exparte decree from the Hon'ble Court and on the basis of the exparte obtained final decree in respect of the schedule property of the plaintiff and claiming right under the same. In the said suit they have suppressed the fact and the said judgment and decree passed in the earlier suits are not binding on the plaintiffs.

¶95

3. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the facts that, the

¶96

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:3331 RSA No. 63 of 2024

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property and they have valid title and possession of the suit property. The defendants only claiming right under the exparte decree and the revenue records obtained under the said exparte decree."

¶99

Learned counsel sought for answering them, in favour of appellants and allow appeal.

¶100

Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused impugned judgment and decree passed by both Courts.

¶101

At outset, it is seen, this second appeal is by unsuccessful plaintiff no.1 in suit for declaration of title over 'A' schedule property, on basis of Exhibit-P1 - registered Will dated 24.07.1975, but, which was disputed by defendants in written statement.

¶102

Under such circumstances, it was incumbent on plaintiffs to prove Will , by producing original and establishing due execution and attestation.

¶103

However, only witness examined by plaintiff is himself as PW.1 i.e. legatee. Thus requirement of law under Section 63 and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and Indian

¶104