Sri. Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. vs Sri R. Keshavareddy & Ors.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

This appeal by defendant Nos.2 and 5, assailing the Judgment and decree dated 09.12.2013, passed by the I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-2)^{11.the Trial Court, for short}, in O.S.No.3555/2004.

The Trial Court under the impugned Judgment and Decree, partly decreed the suit. The operative portion of the Judgment, reads as under:

As stated afore, only defendant Nos.2 and 5 are in appeal.

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

Before dwelling upon the facts of the case, it is apt to mention certain developments taken place during the pendency of the appeal.

This Court after hearing the parties to the appeal, on 23.02.2026, passed the following order:

Thereafter, the appeal was listed on 12.03.2026. On 12.03.2026, this Court passed the following order:

Though the parties appeared in the National Lok-Adalat scheduled on 14.03.2026, as there was no settlement arrived between the parties, the matter was ordered to be listed before the Court on 25.03.2026.

Lastly, the matter was listed on 10.06.2026 and this Court having heard both the parties, reserved the matter for judgment.

All the parties in unison submitted that the issue with regard to suit schedule properties except 'A' schedule property has already been settled between them. In that view of the matter, only lis pending in this appeal is with respect to 'A' schedule property, which according to defendant No.2 has been bequeathed in his favor under Will dated 23.02.2026 by Testator Nanjamma. Under the Will, several properties bequeathed in favor of defendant Nos.2 to 6, including 'A' schedule property in favor of defendant No.2. Now in view of submission made by the parties that lis having been settled in respect of all other properties, the only lis pending in this appeal is with respect to 'A' schedule property. Accordingly, this Court proceed to state the facts which are relevant only in respect of 'A' schedule property in order to save the valuable time of the Court.

Facts germane to decide the present lis are as under:

The plaintiff claims that he is the son of Late Rama Reddy and Nanjamma. Apart from him, there are five sons and one daughter i.e., Sathyavathi - defendant No.1(a), were born in the wedlock. In a Family Partition which was reduced into writing in the year 1974, certain properties were allotted to the share of plaintiff Keshavareddy. Thereafter, not satisfied with the partition effected in his favor in the year 1974, Keshavareddy filed a suit in O.S.No.286/1988 against his father, mother and other brothers, claimant that the said partition was unequal and sought for demarcating his share of properties at one place in the suit schedule properties shown therein i.e., in the schedule to O.S.No.286/1988.

The suit, due to intervention of well-wishers, to put a quietus to the dispute between the parties, lasted in compromise, whereby in lieu of properties allotted under the Partition Deed of 1974, the plaintiff Keshavareddy was allotted several other properties and he was put in possession of the properties stating that he has no right, title or interest in respect of other family properties, left out in the Compromise Deed. In respect of schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C' of suit schedule properties, the same were allotted exclusively to the share of Late Rama Reddy and Nanjamma. The averments stated in the Compromise Petition, which are in regional language, reads as under:

(in vernacular, as it is in original compromise)

(English translation, as provided by learned counsel for appellant No.2)

Thereafter, it appears that there was a partition again in the year 2000 in respect of family properties, which were scheduled in the present suit between defendant Nos.2 to 6, excluding the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition of suit schedule properties, wherein schedule 'A' property was bequeathed in favor of defendant No.2 is also one of the property and sought 1/6^th share in the said properties.

After service of summons, the defendants appeared and filed their respective written statement. In view of restriction of this appeal only with respect to schedule 'A' property, which exclusively claimed by defendant No.2, the facts are constrained only with respect to written statement filed by defendant No.2.

Defendant No.2 in his written statement, denyied the plaint averments stating that the plaintiff though has taken an exception to the partition of 2000, has admitted the partition in the subsequent documents, wherein he has attested the Sale Deeds executed in favor of third party purchasers as a consenting witness. This clearly shows that he is aware of the Partition of the year 2000. Further, defendant No.2 has asserted his right to the exclusivity over schedule 'A' property i.e., residential site and a residential house thereon at Wilson Garden, Bengaluru, on the basis of Will executed by his mother on 23.02.2006 registered before the concerned Sub-Registrar and sought to dismiss the suit.

The Trial Court after completion of pleadings, framed Issues. In view of restriction of this appeal only with respect to schedule 'A' property, only Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 are extracted, which are as under:

The Trial Court answered Issue Nos.1 and 3 in the Affirmative and Issue No.4 in the Negative and proceeded to partly decree the suit. The Trial Court held that in view of compromise decree, the properties scheduled as 'A', 'B' and 'C' were allotted exclusively to Late Rama Reddy and defendant No.1 Nanjamma, with right to alienate the properties and after them, all the plaintiff and defendants therein are entitled for equal share in the properties, if the properties are otherwise not disposed of either by way of conveyance or Will.

The Trial Court has held that after the demise of Rama Reddy, Nanjamma has not exclusive right over the property, but has only half share in the properties and the plaintiff and other sons along with defendant No.1 are entitled to the half share in the property left by Late Rama Reddy. In that view of the matter, Nanjamma lacks exclusive right to bequeath entire properties in favor of defendant Nos.2 to 6 along with other properties under the Will, as she was not absolute owner of the properties stated therein, but she was having only half share in the property.

Heard, Sri.Ranganath Reddy.S, learned counsel appearing for appellant No.1, Sri.Rajesh Mahale, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri.Bryeu Stain Berg & Sri.Jose Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.H.S.Gaurav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri.B.R.Hari Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri.Vishnu Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. Vide order dated 05.09.2014, notice to respondents 6 to 12 is dispensed with.

Sri.Ranganth Reddy, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.2/ appellant No.1 herein with all vehemence submits that the Trial Court has failed to consider the averments made in the compromise decree. In the compromise decree, it was clearly stated that the deceased Late Rama Reddy and his wife Late Nanjamma were exclusively allotted schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C' properties in the present suit, stating that, the properties are their exclusive properties henceforth and neither the plaintiff nor other defendants i.e., defendants 3 to 7 in O.S.No.286/1988 have any right, title or interest towards the property, during the lifetime of Late Rama Reddy and Nanjamma. It was further stated that during their lifetime, they can dispose of the properties either by way of conveyance in any mode recognized under the Transfer of Property Act. The further contents stated in the said compromise petition, clearly show that the plaintiff and other children i.e., defendants 3 to 7 are entitled to equal share in the properties after the demise of both Rama Reddy and Nanjamma, if the properties otherwise retained and not disposed of by way of conveyance or Will. Ex.D25 (Ex.P77) is the Will executed by Nanjamma after the demise of Rama Reddy. In view of admission by the plaintiff in his evidence, especially at Paragraph No.4 in Page No.389, Paragraph No.5 in Page No.390, Paragraphs 6 to 8 in Page No.392-393 and Paragraph No.11 in Page No.395 of the paper book (cross examination of PW.1), wherein he has unequivocally admitted that he has filed a suit, which has ended in compromise.

Per contra, Sri.Rajesh Mahale, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri.Jose Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 herein, argued in support of the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and submitted that the right granted under the compromise decree was limited to Nanjamma. In that view of the matter, she has no absolute and exclusive right over the property to bequeath the same. That apart, she has bequeathed several other properties which were not part of compromise decree. The recital in the Will regarding Partition of the year 2000 clearly shows that she has no right over the property and once she admits that there is a Partition and she has subscribed as a signatory to the said Partition, she has no right left over to execute the Will in favor of defendant Nos.2 to 6. The Trial Court having considered these aspects of the matter, was of the opinion that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and under a strange situation, wherein on the very day of execution of Will, Nanjamma was admitted to the Mallige Hospital for treatment and on three occasions, thereafter she was continued to be hospitalized and breathed her last within 6 months from the date of execution of Will. These are the circumstances which are not been properly explained by leading corroborative and cogent evidence by examining the doctor, to remove the suspicious circumstances, which has properly and rightly been considered by the Trial Court. In that view of the matter, the Judgment and Decree impugned do not require any interference at the hands of this Court.

Having considered the rival submissions, we have gone through the entire appeal paper, as well as the Trial Court record, but restricting only with respect to 'A' Schedule property in view of lis being narrowed down.

The following points would arise for our consideration:

Our answer to above points for consideration is as under:

As stated above, since the entire lis is narrowed down only with respect to 'A' schedule property i.e., residential site and house constructed thereon, the second point for consideration is answered Negative, as lis between the other parties having been stated to be settled, in terms of their submission in unison and as no dispute left in respect of other properties.

As we have already extracted above, in the compromise petition, the properties i.e., schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C' to the suit were exclusively allotted in favor of Late Rama Reddy and Late Nanjamma, both are given right to alienate the property and in the case both the parties dying intestate and only in that circumstance and not otherwise, the plaintiff and other defendants in O.S.No.286/1988 have equal right over the properties. There is a specific averment made in the compromise petition that, the plaintiff and other defendants in O.S.No.286/1988, are entitled to claim equal share in the properties only if the property is retained and otherwise not disposed of by way of a conveyance or Will. In the case on hand, Nanjamma has executed a Will bequeathing the properties stated thereon covering all the suit schedule properties in favor of defendants 2 to 6 in the present suit.

In the said Will, she has bequeathed, 'A' schedule property exclusively in favor of defendant No.2/appellant No.1 herein stating that, he has invested amount in the said property and she is residing along with him in the said property. In the Will she has clearly stated the reason for excluding the plaintiff and her daughter who has been now brought on record as defendant No.1(a), stating that the plaintiff has got several properties in the earlier partition executed between the family members which was reduced into writing in 1974 and thereafter, he having filed a suit contending that there is no equitable partition and sought for demarcating of his share at one place in suit schedule properties in O.S.No.286/1988, and that he having been allotted several properties in the compromise decree, not entitled for any property under the Will. Further she has stated that, since her daughter was married and living happily and settled in matrimonial home and as she was given sufficient gold ornaments and other movable properties at the time of marriage, she is not entitled for any property. She has also stated in the Will that neither the plaintiff nor defendant No.1(a) are looking after her and taking any care of her and it is only defendant Nos.2 to 6 are looking after her and she is living with defendant No.2 in his house i.e., in the schedule 'A' property.

In order to prove the Will though defendant No.2 has not stepped into the witness box, however another beneficiary under the Will i.e., defendant No.5/ appellant No.2 herein has been examined as DW.3 and he has stated regarding execution of the Will by his mother. His evidence was supported by means of examining son of one attesting witness Ravindra and another attesting witness as DW.4 and DW.5.

DW.4 is the son of attesting witness Ravindra. He has identified the signature of his father in the Will stating that it is the signature of his father and as he died, DW.4 was called upon to identify the signature of his father. Nothing worthwhile was elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to discredit his evidence.

So far as DW.5 is concerned, he is a family friend and has stood firm in his cross-examination with respect to execution of the Will. He has clearly stated that Late Nanjamma appeared in good state of health and sound mind and had given instructions to prepare the Will and after the entire contents were read over by Ravindra both Kannada and Telugu, she having understood its contents, affixed/subscribed her thumb impression on the Will and he having seen Late Nanjamma subscribing her thumb impression, acknowledging the thumb impression of Late Nanjamma in her sound state of mind and health, affixed his signature as an attesting witness.

He has further stated that, another witness Ravindra has identified the left thumb impression of Nanjamma on the Will. Admittedly, the Will executed was registered before the concerned Sub-Registrar. Neither the left thumb impression nor the photo in the Will was denied either by the plaintiff or defendant No.1(a). The only contention raised was, on the very same day of executing the Will, Nanjamma was hospitalized and was an in-patient for three days. When the witness has clearly stated regarding sound state of health and mind of the Testator while executing the Will and his evidence neither shaken nor discredited in the cross-examination, it becomes very hard for us to accept the reasons assigned by the Trial Court in its Judgment, which is as under:

It is trite law that a Judge cannot prescribe his personal view on any issue involved in the lis, which is against the evidence led by the respective party in that respect. Appellant No.1 herein by examining the DW.4, son of one of the attesting witnesses identifying the signature of the attesting witness has complied the provision contemplated under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act and by examining another attesting witness DW.5, who stood firm on his evidence with respect to sound state of health and the mind of the Testator -Smt.Nanjamma and identified her thumb impression as well as the signature of another witness Ravindra and has clearly stated that late Nanjamma after got explained the contents of the Will subscribed her thumb impression before him and he has subscribed his signature attesting the same. In the teeth of the specific and categorical evidence of DW.5, the observations of the Trial Court supra are unsustainable in law.

Further, the reasoning of the Trial Court that Nanjamma was entitled only to an extent of half share in the property and not the exclusive right since the properties were allotted jointly to Rama Reddy and Nanjamma, we find it hard again to countenance the same. Though both were given joint rights, the next sentence used assumes importance, which is "the plaintiff and other defendants i.e., defendants 3 to 7 are entitled to equal share in the properties allotted to defendant Nos.1 and 2 upon their demise if the properties allotted to them otherwise not disposed of either by way of a conveyance or under Will." This along with the sentence above stating that, they are having absolute right during their lifetime to alienate the property clearly presupposes that exclusive right over the property has been given to both of them in the compromise petition. The Trial Court has failed to read this aspect of the matter and misread the contents of the compromise petition and over-weighed the medical documents. Further, merely non-production of Will executed by Rama Reddy and certain statements made in the Will regarding Partition of 2000, cannot be a circumstances to discard the entire Will which is otherwise proved in accordance with the law.

Another reason for us to set at naught the finding of the Trial Court on the Will in respect of 'A' schedule property is, the Trial Court tried to shoulder reverse burden on defendant No.2 by holding that, he has failed to examine the doctor of Mallige Hospital in order to substantiate that Late Nanjamma was having good and sound state of mind and health. The witness - DW.5 has clearly stated that none of the defendants were present at the time of execution of Will and it is only him, Ravindra -another attesting witness, advocate (Scribe) who prepared the Will, deceased Nanjamma and a maid servant were present before the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution and registration of the Will and the Testator appeared to be in sound state of mind & health, having understood the contents after it was read over and explained both in Kannada and Telugu, subscribed her Left Thumb Impression to the Will.

DW.5 has clearly stated regarding sound state of mind and health of Late Nanjamma and stood firm in his cross-examination. In that view of the matter, as the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1(a) asserted and taken a plea that Nanjamma was suffering from illness, it is for them to prove with all probabilities, by examining the doctor to stake a claim that Nanjamma was suffering from ill-health and was not in a sound state of mind to execute the Will. There is no such attempt made neither by the plaintiff nor defendant No.1(a). Mere production of Medical certificates are not the only circumstances to discredit the proof of Will, when the same has been proved in accordance with law as per the provisions of Indian Succession Act R/w. Indian Evidence Act. The Trial Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and misread both the compromise petition as well as Will and weighed the self-serving testimony of plaintiff and defendant No.1(a) and the medical documents to discard the Will. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Judgment of the Trial Court discarding the Will with respect to 'A' schedule property in favor of defendant No.2 by Nanjamma suffers from inherent error and requires consideration holding that, defendant No.2/appellant No.1 herein established and proved the Will to claim 'A' schedule property under the Will. For the foregoing reason, we proceed to pass the following:

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.