- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15722 RSA No. 1432 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1432 OF 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI WILLIAM GLADSON S/O MR CRUS AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT D NO.108/2-A II CROSS, REJENDRA NAGAR MYSURU PIN:570079 …APPELLANT (BY SRI N.NANJUNDASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT MONICA F W/O LATE JOSEPH ARTHU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2. MR NITHIN ARNOLD S/O LATE JOSEPH ARTHUR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.108/2-A, II CROSS RAJENDRA NAGAR MYSURU PIN :570 015 3. PATRIC S/O LATE MR CRUS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT D NO.152/72 R B POST, PUSHPAGIRI MYSURU Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15722 RSA No. 1432 of 2017 PIN:570039 4. MISS SOLIT MONICA D/O LATE MR CRUS W/O MARIA DAS AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS HAVING CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS K M ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURE PIN: 577101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMSHITH HEGDE S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.2.2017 PASSED IN RA No.200/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED IN OS No.553/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2017 passed in R.A.No.200/2016 by the II Additional District Judge, Mysuru, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2013 passed in O.S.No.553/2008 by the IV Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC., Mysuru. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15722 RSA No. 1432 of 2017 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.3, the respondents No.1 and 2 were plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and respondents No.3 and 4 were defendants No.1 and 2 respectively. 3. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and mesne profits. 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is the mother of plaintiff No.2. The husband of plaintiff No.1 and the father of plaintiff No.2, by name Joseph Arthur, is the brother of defendants No.1 to 3. One Mr. Crus and his wife Mrs. Theresa are the parents of defendants No.1 to 3 and the first plaintiff’s husband. One of their sons had pre-deceased them issueless. The husband of plaintiff No.1 died intestate on 04.06.2004. The mother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 by name Mrs. Theresa, died about six months prior to the institution of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15722 RSA No. 1432 of 2017 suit. The suit schedule property was acquired by plaintiff No.1’s father-in-law, Mr. Crus, who is no more. 5. It is contended that plaintiffs and the defendants belonged to Chritian Community and as per Indian Christian Succession Laws, property developed on the legal representatives equally, and hence, the plaintiffs have 1/4th share in the suit property. It is contended that before institution of the suit, the plaintiffs issued notice to defendant No.3 demanding their shares. Defendant No.3 gave an untenable reply and contended that the suit schedule property was granted to his mother, Mrs. Theresa and she, under a registered Will dated 01.09.2005 bequeathed the suit in his favour and refused to grant shares. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a filed suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, pray to decree the suit. 6. Defendants filed a common written statement admitting the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants. It is contended that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the mother of defendant Nos.1 to 3 by the Karnataka Housing Board. As such, she became the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15722 RSA No. 1432 of 2017 absolute owner of it, and she had bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3, under a registered Will dated 01.09.2005 and, she died on 03.09.2007. After the demise of Mrs. Theresa, defendant No.3 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property under the registered Will dated 01.09.2005. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit. 7. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the issues and additional issues. 8. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, examined plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and marked two documents as Exs.P.1 and P.2. On the other hand, defendant No.3 was examined as D.W.1. Defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.2, two witnesses have been examined as D.Ws.3 and 4 and marked twelve documents as Exs.D.1 to D.12. 9. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 20.12.2013. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.200/2016 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Mysuru. The first appellate Court on re-assessing the verbal - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15722 RSA No. 1432 of 2017 and documentary evidence, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.553/2008 and consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in part. It is ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs and the defendants together have 1/6th share in the suit schedule property, and there shall be a partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ 1/6th share in the suit property and dismissed the plaintiffs’ relief of mesne profits. 10. Defendant No.3, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.200/2016, filed this regular second appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for defendant No.3. 12. Learned counsel for defendant No.3 submits that the Karnataka Housing Board allotted the suit schedule property in favour of the mother of defendant No.3 and she had executed a registered Will, dated 01.09.2005, bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 submits that after the demise of his mother, he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He submits - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15722 RSA No. 1432 of 2017 that the First Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. He submits that the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit. 13. Defendant No.3 also submits that P.W.1 has admitted regarding the execution of the registered Will by Mrs. Theresa in favour of defendant No.3. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 14. Perused the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for defendant No.3. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property was originally granted in favour of Mr. Crus by virtue of the lease cum sale agreement. He died, leaving behind his legal heirs. After the demise of Mr. Crus, the Karnataka Housing Board executed a registered sale deed in favour of Mrs. Theresa. 15. Mrs. Theresa being the mother of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and mother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and being the manager of the family, the sale deed was executed in her name only to facilitate the execution of registered sale deed and change of mutation of property. The original grantee died, on his demise plaintiff No.1’s husband, defendants No.1 to 3, Mrs. Theresa - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15722 RSA No. 1432 of 2017 succeeded to suit property. The registered sale deed executed in favour of Mrs. Theresa was only for convenience. Mrs. Theresa has not acquired any title independently and she has not become the absolute owner by virtue of the sale deed executed by the Karnataka Housing Board in her favour. Further, she has no right to bequeath suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 by executing a registered Will. The First Appellate Court has rightly considered the said aspect and rightly decreed the suit. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment or any substantial questions of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2017 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2017 is disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE MR