Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka heard two connected regular first appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2012 passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No.15823/1999. The trial court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs (daughters and grandson of late Thammaiah) seeking declaration that the Will dated 30.06.1993 executed by Thammaiah in favour of his grandson Yogesh Govindaraju (original defendant No.1) was null and void, permanent injunction, and partition of the suit property bearing No.46/2, 12th Main Road, 6th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Late Thammaiah had three daughters and one son. The plaintiffs claimed that Thammaiah had earlier executed Wills on 24.06.1974 and 03.03.1981 bequeathing the property to all children equally and that the disputed Will dated 30.06.1993 was obtained by fraud, undue influence, and when Thammaiah was bedridden, ailing, and not in a sound disposing state of mind. They alleged suspicious circumstances including the active participation of defendant No.1 and his maternal uncle as attesting witness. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the Will was validly executed when Thammaiah was healthy and of sound mind, that the daughters had earlier released their rights through registered release deeds in 1979, and that the subsequent Will revoked the earlier ones. They relied on a general power of attorney also executed on 30.06.1993. During the pendency of the suit, original defendant No.1 died and was substituted by his legal representatives, including his wife Smt. Padmini (defendant No.1(a)). The trial court, after considering the evidence, decreed the suit, declaring the Will dated 30.06.1993 null and void and granting the plaintiffs 3/4th share in the suit property. Aggrieved, defendant No.1(b) Smt. Pramila Devi filed RFA No.1228/2012 and defendant No.1(a) Smt. Padmini filed RFA No.986/2012. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment. The incomplete text of the judgment does not contain the court’s analysis, findings, or final order. The present extract covers only the background facts, pleadings, and the initial part of the written statement of defendant No.1(b). The available text underscores that the core dispute centers on the validity of the Will and the entitlement to partition, with competing claims based on earlier instruments, release deeds, and allegations of suspicious circumstances and undue influence.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Will dated 30.06.1993 executed by Thammaiah in favour of defendant No.1 is valid; Whether it was executed under suspicious circumstances, undue influence, and without sound disposing mind; Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession; Whether the trial court’s decree declaring the will null and void and granting 3/4th share is sustainable
Law Points
- Proof of will
- suspicious circumstances
- sound disposing mind
- undue influence
- revocation of earlier will by subsequent will
- partition rights after release deed
- burden of proof on propounder
- Section 96 appeal
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (08) 8
RFA No.1228/2012 c/w RFA No.986/2012
N.R. Jagadeeswara, Ravishankar S., T. Sheshagiri Rao, K.N. Prakash
Smt. Pramila Devi (RFA No.1228/2012) and Smt. Padmini (RFA No.986/2012)
M. Sathyanarayana, Smt. T. Shanthamma, Smt. T. Shivamma, Smt. Padmini, Smt. B. Pramila Devi, and Manager, Karnataka State Financial Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and partition, later appealed as regular first appeals under Section 96 CPC against decree
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought declaration that Will dated 30.06.1993 is null and void, permanent injunction, and partition with 3/4th share; defendants sought dismissal of suit
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs alleged that Will dated 30.06.1993 was fraudulent, executed under undue influence, and while testator lacked sound mind; they claimed earlier Will dated 03.03.1981 governed succession
Previous Decisions
Trial court (XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru) in O.S. No.15823/1999 decreed suit on 07.03.2012, declaring Will null and void and granting 3/4th share to plaintiffs
Issues
Validity of Will dated 30.06.1993
Soundness of mind of testator at the time of execution
Undue influence and suspicious circumstances surrounding the will
Entitlement to partition and determination of shares
Effect of prior release deeds and earlier wills
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiffs contended the Will dated 30.06.1993 was obtained by fraud and undue influence; Thammaiah was bedridden, ailing, and not in a sound disposing state of mind; one attesting witness was the maternal uncle of beneficiary; earlier Wills showed equal treatment to all children; the Will was executed in suspicious circumstances and suppressed by defendant No.1
Defendants contended the Will was validly executed when Thammaiah was healthy and of sound mind; daughters had earlier released their rights through registered release deeds in 1979; the subsequent Will revoked earlier Wills; defendant No.1 became absolute owner; another Will dated 24.06.2002 by defendant No.1 bequeathed the property to his wife
Judgment Excerpts
The Court below in decreeing the said suit by declaring that the Will dated 30.06.1993 executed by late Thammaiah is null and void and that the plaintiffs, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, are entitled for partition and separate possession of their 3/4 th share in the suit schedule property.
Thammaiah had executed a Will in respect of the suit schedule property.
It is stated that defendant No.1 exercised undue influence on Thammaiah to get the Will dated 30.06.1993.
Thammaiah was bed ridden, ailing for quite a long time. He was not in a sound disposing state of mind when the said Will was alleged to have been executed by him.
Will dated 30.06.1993 came into existence in suspicious circumstances.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed O.S. No.15823/1999 before XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, for declaration, permanent injunction, and partition. Trial court decreed suit on 07.03.2012. Aggrieved, defendants No.1(a) and 1(b) filed RFA No.986/2012 and 1228/2012 respectively under Section 96 CPC. Both appeals heard together by High Court of Karnataka. Judgment reserved and delivered on 16.08.2019, but text of judgment beyond initial paragraphs not provided in the extract.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1
