- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1334 OF 2009 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: M NARENDRA BABU S/O LATE K MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.278, 19TH C MAIAN KORAMANGALA LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 034 &APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRIDHAR H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M GEETHA D/O LATE K MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. SRI M CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE K MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. SRI M RAMESH S/O LATE K MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL R/AT NO.197/B, III BLOCK 8TH B MAIN, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 3 560 011 &RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 (BY SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3; SRI. SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2008 PASSED IN O.S.4677/1986 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, (CCH-3) AND BE PLEASED TO DECREE THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANT BY DIVIDING THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES BY METES AND BOUNDS BY GIVING 1/4TH SHARE TO THE APPELLANT IN ALL THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AND TO AWARD COSTS IN THE CIRCUMSTNCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal is by unsuccessful plaintiff calling in question judgment and decree dated 13.11.2008 in O.S.No.4677/1986 whereby, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking for partition and separate possession in suit schedule properties. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under:- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 The relationship between the parties is not disputed. The plaintiff and defendants herein are the children of late K.Muni Reddy and Parimalamma. The plaintiff filed suit against his parents, sister and brothers seeking for partition in all the suit schedule properties, contending that the properties were earned by the nucleus of joint family business a partnership firm and he being the active partner is entitled for a share in the properties as the properties being joint family properties, though they were purchased in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2. He further contended that properties standing in his name were his self earned properties. The property bearing No.15 at Puttanna Lane, Police Road Cross, Ranasingh Pet, Bengaluru, was gifted by his grandmother and other properties are earned by himself. 3. In response to the suit summons, all the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed common written statement denying the existence of joint family and suit schedule properties being the joint family - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 properties, so also the age of the plaintiff as shown in the cause-title. It is stated that the property bearing No.278, 6th Block, 19-C Main Road, Koramangala Layout is the exclusive property of the plaintiff and this fact has been suppressed by the plaintiff. They denied the allegation that the plaintiff and the defendants constitute a joint Hindu family. They have further denied that the defendant No.1 was the Karta of the joint family. They have specifically asserted that there is no property alleged to be the joint family property. They have also denied the joint family business and alleged contribution made by the plaintiff to the family. They have specifically stated that the plaintiff never worked and was never working for and on behalf of the defendants9 family. They have admitted that the defendants are running the business in carpets and broom sticks etc., in the name and style as, <M/s Bangalore Carpet House=, but they are all independent businesses of the defendants. The suit schedule properties were earned by defendant Nos.1 and 2 on their own efforts, as such, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 they are self acquired property of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The properties at item Nos.1 and 3 are the properties owned by defendant No.1 and properties at item Nos.2 and 4 are the properties earned by defendant No.2. The plaintiff was inducted as partner in the year 1979. By that time, all the properties were purchased by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their name. The properties neither belonging to the joint family nor to the partnership firm as alleged. The plaintiff after his marriage in the year 1983, got separated from his parents and is living separately since 1986. There is no contribution as alleged by the plaintiff towards the family. As such, he is not entitled for any partition in the suit schedule properties and sought to dismiss the suit. 4. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 expired. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 5 being the only legal heirs survived them. Subsequent to the death of parents, the defendant Nos.3 to 5 got amended the written statement. Coherently, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 defendant Nos.4 and 5 claimed as owners of properties under a Will dated 17.01.1991, executed by late K.Muni Reddy bequeathing his self acquired properties in their favour and defendant Nos.3 to 5 claimed that late Parimalamma had executed a Will dated 31.01.1987 bequeathing her self acquired properties in their favour. 5. After completion of pleadings, the trial Court framed following issues, which reads as under:- 1. <Whether the plaintiff proves that himself and defendants 1 to 5 constituted members of Hindu joint family? 2. Whether the defendants prove that properties described at plaint schedule A, B, D, E, F, G are their self acquired properties? 3. Whether defendants prove that business carried on in premises NO.20, Krishnarajendra Market, Bangalore, being run under the name and style of M/s Bangalore Carpet House is the individual business of defendants 1 and 2? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that properties mentioned at schedule A,B,D,E,F,G were acquired out of joint family funds and joint family business, being run under the name and style of M/s Bangalore Carpet House? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 5. Whether the plaintiff proves that the properties mentioned in schedule C and H of the plaint are his exclusive properties? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/4th a share in the plaint schedule A, B, D, E, F, G properties? 7. Whether court fee paid is sufficient? 8. What decree or order?= 6. Subsequent to the death of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in view of the claim made by defendant Nos.3 to 5 under two separate Will, additional issue Nos.1 and 2 came to be framed by the trial Court, which reads as under:- <ADDITIONAL ISSUES: 1. If self acquired properties, whether the defendant No.1 Shri. Munireddy had executed a will dated 17/1/1991 In favour of defendant No.4 and 5? 2. Whether Parimalamma had executed a will dated 31/1/1997 bequeathing her properties to defendant No.3, 4 and 5?= 7. After framing of the issues, the trial Court put the suit on trial. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim examined as PW-1, produced 15 documents marked them as Exs.P.1 to P.15 and closed his side. Defendant No.4 3 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 Chandrashekar examined as DW-1 and two witnesses Smt.Chamundamma and Sri.A.Govindaswamy Naidu as DWs-2 and 3, produced 11 documents marked them as Exs.D.1 to D.11 and closed their side. 8. The trial Court after considering the evidence both oral and documentary, pleadings and arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, proceeded to answer issue Nos.1 to 6, issue No.8 and additional issue Nos.1 and 2 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants except issue No.7 regarding payment of Court fee. The findings of the trial Court on the issues are stated as under:- <Issue No. 1: Partly in affirmative. Issue No.2: In affirmative. Issue No.3: In affirmative. Issue No.4: In negative. Issue No.5: In negative. Issue No.6: In negative. Issue No.7: In affirmative. Additional Issue No. 1: In affirmative. Additional Issue No. 2: In affirmative. Issue No.8: As per final order, for the following:= - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 9. In view of admission of relationship, the trial Court proceeded to answer issue No.1 partly in the affirmative only to extent of relationship of parties. However, insofar as joint family is concerned, it has given a finding that the plaintiff is not a member of the joint family of the defendants. The trial Court while considering the claim of the plaintiff has held that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that what was his income and how much he had contributed to the family and in the absence of any such evidence, disbelieved the contentions of the plaintiff. The trial Court has reached to the conclusion on the evidence of PW-1 3 plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 and 2 came from Andhra Pradesh empty handed and settled in Karnataka. The defendant No.1 was working as a Salesman under one A.G.Mohammed Sahib and on his own efforts, he acquired suit schedule properties as admitted in the cross-examination by PW-1. The trial Court has also recorded a finding that defendant No.1 has not succeeded any property from his ancestors and there - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 is no nucleus from the ancestral property which was utilized to acquire the suit schedule properties. As such, the trial Court held that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the properties. The trial Court has also observed that in the Will executed by father (defendant No.1), there is a specific mention for exclusion of plaintiff as the defendant No.1 has made separate arrangement for maintenance and avocation of the plaintiff provided separate shop and paid sufficient cash and plaintiff is looking after the said shop at SKR Market, as such, the defendant No.1 executed the Will in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 to make separate arrangement to settle their life. 10. To prove the Will at Exs.D.1 and D.2, the defendants have examined DWs-2 and 3, who are the attesting witnesses to the said Will. The sale deeds in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the properties as described in the suit schedule are all prior to 1979 i.e., the year when the plaintiff was inducted in the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 partnership firm. The defendant Nos.3 to 5 claimed their rights on the suit schedule properties under the Will and contended that the plaintiff has no right to claim any partition in the said properties. Though the plaintiff has claimed exclusive ownership in respect of 8C9 and 8D9 schedule properties, the trial Court answered issue No.5 against the plaintiff stating that these properties are the properties given by the defendant No.1 by a separate arrangement to the plaintiff to settle him. The trial Court reasoned its decision holding that the defendant Nos.3 to 5 proved both the Will at paragraph No.22 of its judgment, which reads as under:- <22. It is also the contention of the defendants that defendants 1 to 5 were jointly working and running the business and out of their savings and income, they have purchased the other schedule properties, The evidence deposed by DW.1 clearly shows that defendants 1 and 2 used to work jointly and the 2nd defendant has also got some money and jewellery from her parents and sold the same and purchased item No.2 of the A schedule property. At that time, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 were still small children. When it is so, the question of contributing any money by the plaintiff for purchase of the said property does not arise. Therefore, it falsifies the contentions of the plaintiff to the effect that he has earned huge money from the business - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 and contributed the same for purchase of the schedule properties. Further, according to the plaintiff, he has earned huge money and invested the same for the business of the defendants and so, he has got right of share. However, the plaintiff who has taken such contentions, has not produced any books of accounts to show what was the amount earned by him and contributed to the defendants for purchasing the schedule properties. So, in the absence of any such evidence, it is highly impossible to believe the contentions of the plaintiff. No doubt, the evidence produced by both the parties9 shows that the 1st defendant came with bare hands to Bangalore and was working under one A.G. Mohammed Sahib and thereafter he purchased the running concern of said A.G. Mohammed Sahib and out of the income derived from the said business, the 1st defendant has purchased the other properties. Admittedly, the suit A schedule property was allotted to the 1st defendant for Rs.2,800/-and the 2nd defendant has contributed some amount and out of her own jewellery and selling the property of her mother, the 2 defendant has purchased item No.2 of A schedule. Therefore, they are all self acquired properties of defendants 1 and 2. So, they have got absolute right to sell, alienate or will away the same to defendants 3 to 5. As per Ex.D.10, the property in D schedule has been independently acquired by the 3rd defendant. So, the above said oral and documentary evidence produced by the defendants leads to the definite conclusion that defendant NO.1, out of his own efforts purchased the business concern of A.G. Mohammed Sahib and started the business of brooms, brushes, carpets etc., and supplied the same to various government and semi- government offices and others and developed the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 said business and out of the profits and savings, purchased the schedule properties and so, the schedule properties are all self acquired properties of defendants 1 and 2, except the D schedule. There is no dispute that the 1st defendant Munireddy came with bare hands and started his own business and he has not inherited any property from his parents and so, the plaintiff who is the 1st son of defendants 1 and 2 has no right to claim share in the schedule properties. In spite of that, Relevant portion of the contents of Ex.D1 the will executed by defendant No 1 in favour of defendants 3 to 5, reads as- < ¾ ¬¬Î ®Î¼Í ¬ ­Í ®¿ ®¬Í ¬¿ ® ¿ έ ¼Í¾Î. ¯ ® .¬!ÎÝ®$%¾¬Í ¬Í½½'Î (¾¬Í )¾ *ÎÝ %Î ¿+¼Í ,- .$¿0!¾1ÎÝ®$ 2¾¼Í3Î4¯56¼Í½ %Î ¿+¼Í 7μ¼Í¿9 :¯¬Í; 2¾:<ÎÎ­Í ¬=ì , ?¬¬Í @¾AB¾¼ Cݽ(ÎÎÝB¾¯ D¾¼Í½¬ÎE <ÎÎ-4®F¾6ÎÝ ?¬¬ 7¾ Î ?¬¬ ¼D¾¼® ­I¿A® ¬®ÏK4L® 7ÎMN¬O¬® ¬ ®Í ½¯½¬Î; ½­@Î ½¼Í ¿¬Î; <ÎÎRÍ4 ¼7¾¯ 2¾:¼ÍÎÝ(Î. ) ½¬Í ¬¬; 7έS ®¬Í ®¿ 1ÎÎÎ ¬';® ®$ÎAÝ@¾ ¼D¾¼ ¬UμÍS¾F(Î= So, the above part of the contents of Ex.D.1 the registered will executed by the 1st defendant clearly goes to show that even though the plaintiff has left the house voluntarily from the family of the defendants, out of his love and affection, defendant NO.1 has made separate arrangement for maintenance and avocation for the plaintiff by giving the running concern with money and valuable jewellery etc. So, the "H" schedule as shown in the plaint schedule i.e., the shop premises NO.22 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 situated at SKR Market is the exclusive property of the plaintiff by virtue of Ex.D.1. The above contents of Ex.D.1 also show that the plaintiff has already left the house very long back and he is no more a member of the joint family of the defendants. Even Ex.D.3 the notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants also clearly shows that he has already left the house even prior to filing of the suit and started living in an independent house, after dissolution of the partnership firm So, that is also one of the circumstances showing that the plaintiff has already been ousted from the family and he has taken his lawful share in the business. Even though the plaintiff is not legally entitled to claim any share in the schedule properties as they are all self acquired properties of defendants NO 1 and 2, out of love and affection, defendant NO.1 has made arrangement for running business by giving running business concern with sufficient money and jewellery. Therefore, on that count also the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the schedule properties. The above view taken by me is also supported by the following decisions:- 1) ILR 2004 Karnataka 1353 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S.Sairam and another Vs. P.S.Rama Rao Pisey and others, which reads as, "Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 6 As amended by Section GA of Hindu Succession by(Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990 Suit for partition in relation to business carried on by his father Defendant 1 carrying on business in joint family property Whether business conducted by defendant 1 was his separate business or it belonged to joint family Whether mere user of joint family property as a business premises by Karta of Joint family can be said to be detrimental - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 to joint family property (No) Joint family had not invested any. Money in the business at any point of time-Business carried on by defendant 1 cannot be treated to be Joint family business." q) 2002(1) Karnataka Law Journal 394 (DB) in Virupakshappa Malleshappa Sanklapura and others vs. Smt. Akka Mahadevi and others, which reads as, "(C) Hindu Law Joint family - Property purchased in name of member of-When it is not shown in evidence that member in whose name property is purchased, has any income of his own other than Income from joint family business, property so purchased is to be held as joint family property" iii) AIR 1993 Karnataka 148(1993(1) KLJ 138)Gundappa RudrapD4 Hampali Vs. Renukappa), which reads as, "Existence of joint family nucleus is a question of fact to be established by direct or circumstantial evidence...........= <Existence of joint family does not lead to inference that property held by any member of family is joint...= So, the above cited decisions clearly show that in the absence of any ancestral and joint family nucleus and in the absence of any property inherited by a party, any property acquired by him would be treated as bare self acquired properties. Here, in the instant case also, the oral and documentary evidences clearly go to show that "A" and "C" schedule properties are the self acquired properties of defendants 1 and 2 and D schedule is the self - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 acquired property of defendant NO.3 Smt.Geetha, including "E" schedule movable properties viz., Ind Suzki motor cycle which is standing in the name of the 4th defendant and Ambassador Car bearing NO. MEX 4985 standing in the name of the 5th defendant. Further, it is also the case of the plaintiff that, item NO.3 Sony Color Television Set and item NO.4 the video cassette recorder in E schedule and old jewellery shown in "F" and "G" schedule are all joint family properties and so, they have to be divided into four equal shares and he is entitled for ¼ share. However, first of all the existence of the said jewellery and valuables has not been proved by sufficient evidence. Ex.D..2 will shows that the 2nd defendant had some jewellery and sold the same and purchased item NO.2 of the schedule property. When the plaintiff has failed to show the existence of the said movables, the question of effecting partition does not arise and more than that, as discussed above, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share against the defendants and so, the question of allotting any share in respect of the said movables does not arise More than that, Ex.D.2 will shows that some more properties are in the hands of the plaintiff and defendants as shown in the schedule of Ex.D.2. However, those properties have not been included in the suit. So, the suit is also bad for partial partition as it is the established principles of law that in a suit for partition, all the properties shall be included in the suit. However, some of the properties have been left out for the reasons best known to the plaintiff So, viewed from any angle, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, issues No.4 to 6 are held as negative to the plaintiff and issues NO.2 and 3 are held as affirmative to the defendants.= - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 11. The trial Court has held that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, as such the plaintiff has no right to claim any share in the properties of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and subsequently, the defendant Nos.3 to 5 having proved the Will in accordance with law, became owners of suit schedule properties and the plaintiff has no manner of right in law to stake claim/any share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, answered all the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed his suit. It is this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court challenged in the present appeal. 12. Heard Sri.Giridhar H., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.T.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 3, Sri.Sunil S. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 13. Sri.Giridhar H., learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the properties were acquired - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 through family business under a partnership firm though in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2, they were blended in the partnership firm with an intention to treat them as firm properties. As such, the plaintiff being the partner in the partnership firm and so also as a son, entitled for partition. He has further submitted that, the trial Court failed to consider the said aspect of the matter. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the plaintiff, however, on the wrong appreciation of evidence, lead by the defendants, proceeded to answer the issue regarding joint family against the plaintiff. He has further contended that the defendants have admitted that they were running a Firm. This admission is more than sufficient to prove that the properties are joint family/firm properties. The trial Court has committed a serious error to hold that the plaintiff has not produced any document to prove that he had contributed any income to the joint family business and towards purchase of joint family properties. However, he has submitted that the plaintiff has not - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 contested the execution of Will by the defendant Nos.1 and 2, as the same was not necessary since the properties are joint family properties. With this, he sought to set aside the judgment and decree dismissing the suit and prays for allowing the appeal holding that the properties stated in the suit schedule properties being blended in the partnership firm becomes the properties of the firm and he, being the partner and a member of the joint family, entitled for a share in the properties. 14. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.T.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 3 with all vehemence submitted that the properties scheduled to the plaint are all purchased by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the year 1958, 1973 and 1977 under Exs.P.1, P.2, P.4 and P.8 respectively i.e., prior to the plaintiff inducted as partner in the year 1979. That apart, the plaintiff never worked as a partner and he got separated in the year 1986. He further submitted that the plaintiff was given property by - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 defendant No.1 under a separate arrangement so also sufficient cash for his business and livelihood and is the precise reason for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to exclude him in their respective Will. There is a specific recital in Ex.D.1 which has been extracted by the trial Court at paragraph No.22 showing that the plaintiff was given separate property and sufficient cash as such, excluded him under the Will. The properties being self acquired properties of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff has no right to claim any share in the properties. The defendant Nos.3 to 5 under the Will at Exs.D.1 and D.2 became owners of the properties and the Will having been proved in accordance with law by leading evidence before the trial Court and as there is no contest by the plaintiff denying both the Will, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit answering all the issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. He has further submitted that the trial Court has assigned proper reasons for its conclusion, as - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 such, it does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court and sought to dismiss the appeal. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties perused entire trial Court record so also appeal papers, the points that arise for our consideration are as follows:- 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of Joint family? 2. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the suit schedule properties at A, B, D, E, F, G are the self acquired properties of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and not joint family properties earned through a joint family business under the name and style M/s. Bangalore Carpet House? 3. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the business under the name and style M/s.Bangalore Carpet House is an individual business of defendant Nos.1 and 2? - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 4. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the defendant Nos.3 to 5 have proved Exs.D.1 and D.2 3 the Will, executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2, respectively in their favour? 5. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court requires any interference at the hands of this Court? 16. Our answer to the above point Nos.1 to 4 are in the 8Affirmative9 and point No.5 is in 8Negative9 for the following:- R E A S O N S 17. Arguments of Sri.Giridhar H., learned counsel for the appellant:- The sum and substance of the argument by learned counsel for the appellant is that suit schedule properties purchased through the funds earned by the joint family business, though purchased in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 but blended in the partnership firm and the - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 plaintiff being the partner entitled for a share as claimed in the suit. However, he has submitted that the plaintiff has not contested the execution of both the Will by defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively, as was not necessary since the properties were joint family properties, the trial Court failed to consider the same which has resulted in dismissing the suit and sought to allow the appeal consequently, decree the suit as prayed for. 18. Arguments of Sri.T.Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3:- The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents is that the properties are self acquired properties of the father and mother i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2 and purchased even prior to induction of plaintiff as partner in 1979. The firm is not a joint family firm rather it is individual firm of defendant Nos.1 and 2, no documents to prove the contention of blending of properties produced by the plaintiff. The defendant Nos. 3 to 5 became owners of the - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 properties under the Will Exs.D.1 and D.2 executed in their favour by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the same proved in accordance with law. The trial Court having appreciated entire material on record rightly dismissed the suit with reasoned judgment, which does not call for any interference and sought to dismiss the appeal. Analysis:- 19. The appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being a statutory first appeal and this Court being last fact finding Court obliged under law to re- appreciate the entire evidence and the facts pleaded by the parties before the trial Court. 20. The contention of the plaintiff that though the properties purchased in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 but were blended in the firm, with an intention to treat them as firm properties. The properties were acquired with earnings of joint family business under a partnership firm, though purchased in the name of defendant Nos.1 - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 and 2 but were blended in the partnership firm with an intention to treat them as properties of the firm and he being a partner is entitled for a legitimate share. It is germane to mention that the plaintiff has not produced the deed of partnership to substantiate his claim that the properties though purchased in the name of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were blended in the partnership firm with an intention to treat the properties as partnership firm properties. However, as per the averments made in the plaint, his claim is as that of a coparcener of family, as per paragraph No.14 of the plaint, which we reproduce as under:- <14. As mentioned supra, plaintiff and defendants 1, 4 and 5 constitute a coparcenery and at a partition plaintiff would be entitled to one-forth share in all the suit schedule properties and as all the efforts of the plaintiffs to get his one-forth legitimate share in all the suit schedule properties have failed and the demand of the plaintiff for the partition and separate possession of his one-forth share has been denied and disputed by the defendants and as it is no longer possible or is in the interest of the plaintiff to continue in the joint family status in view of the hostile and defiant attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff has no other choice except to approach this Hon9ble Court. Hence this suit.= - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 21. The admissions in the plaint as well as in the evidence of PW-1, defendant Nos.1 and 2 both came from Andhra Pradesh to Bengaluru with empty hands and earned good fortune and purchase the properties by way of their own exertion. Though the plaintiff has taken a stand that the mother was not having any independent income, however, in view of the pleadings by the defendant No.1 (husband of defendant No.2) in the written statement that the properties purchased by the defendant No.2 are her self acquired properties through her own earnings, the contention of the plaintiff holds no water. It is germane to mention that the plaintiff was not born when the partnership firm taken over by the father of the plaintiff i.e., defendant No.1 in the year 1948. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 on their own, earned the properties. Except the self serving statement of the plaintiff, he has not adduced any independent witness to substantiate his claim that the properties are joint family properties or the properties though purchased in the name - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 of defendant Nos.1 and 2 but were blended in the partnership deed with an intention to treat the same as partnership firm properties. In view of lack of evidence it becomes very hard to hold that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties and the properties having been purchased in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 on their own earnings, the same became self acquired properties of the father and mother, the plaintiff cannot claim his right even as a coparcener, as the properties never been in the hands of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 through their ancestors. 22. The entire stand/claim of the plaintiff has been taken away by the admissions given by the plaintiff during his cross-examination wherein, he has clearly admitted that his father came to Bengaluru without any means empty handed to meet his livelihood and when the father had taken over the partnership firm belonging to one A.G.Mohammed Sahib in the year 1948, the plaintiff was not born. Plaintiff has clearly admitted that the suit - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 schedule 8C9 property is not a joint family property, as it belongs to Smt.Venkatamma i.e., the mother of the defendant No.1 i.e., grandmother to the plaintiff. He has contended that Smt.Venkatamma gifted the property in his favor. However, he has not produced any gift deed said to have been executed by Smt.Venkatamma in his favour. He has taken a clear stand in the pleadings as well as in the evidence that property at 8C9 schedule is self acquired property of Smt.Venkatamma. He has also admitted that his father is the only child to his grandparents. If that be so, subsequent to death of Smt.Venkatamma intestate the defendant No.1 being the only child succeeded to the property under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as such, the property becomes his independent and individual property. The plaintiff has failed to establish that the properties described in the schedules either belonging to joint family properties or the properties blended in the partnership firm with an intention to treat the said properties as the - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 firm properties, as claimed by him in the absence of partnership deed. 23. It is settled position of law that the evidence shall be read as a whole and not swayed by a stray sentence. It is also settled position of law that the plaintiff has to succeed on his own grounds and not on the weakness of the defendants. In the absence of cogent evidence to prove the right to claim partition, the plaintiff cannot succeed on the stray admission of defendants that they were running a partnership business in the cross- examination. 24. The trial Court has rightly answered issue No.1 partly in affirmative only to the extent of stating the relationship of the parties and not the jointness of the properties. The finding of the trial Court is on sound reasons and a product of proper appreciation of materials placed before it, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 25. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there is no contest by him regarding the Will claimed by defendant Nos.3 to 5, however, this Court is duty bound to revisit the claim of defendant Nos.3 to 5 under Will to the extent of proof of Will as contemplated under the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the same has a bearing on the right of the plaintiff. 26. The defendant Nos.3 to 5 in order to substantiate their claim on Will at Exs.D.1 and D.2 examined DWs-2 and 3, the attesting witnesses to Exs.D.1 and D.2 respectively. DW-2 3 Smt.Chamundamma, who has been examined as an attesting witness to Ex.D.1 has stated that she is known to the family since 25 years and she has seen the Executor 3 Sri.K.Muni Reddy in a sound state of mind, subscribed his signature to the Will and she has signed the Will acknowledging the signature of the Executor as an attesting witness. DW-3 3 Sri.A.Govindaswamy Naidu, who has been examined as an - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 attesting witness to Ex.D.2, by the defendant Nos.3 to 5 to substantiate the Will executed by their mother in their favour. The said witness has clearly stated that he is known to the family since 30 years and he has seen Smt.Parimalamma subscribing her signature in sound state of mind to Ex.D.2 and he has acknowledged her signature and subscribed his signature as an attesting witness. Though the said witnesses were cross-examined at length by the plaintiff, however, nothing worthwhile elicited to disbelieve their version insofar as the execution of Will by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 vide Ex.D.1 and D.2. 27. The trial Court while answering the claim of plaintiff at paragraph No.22, appreciated the entire materials placed before it and even extracted the relevant portions of contents in Ex.D.1 wherein, the defendant No.1 has clearly stated the reason for excluding plaintiff in the Will which we have already reproduced above. The trial Court having considered the entire materials placed before it and relying on the judgments stated in paragraph No.22 - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 answered issue Nos.4 to 6 against the plaintiff and issue Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the defendants. Insofar as Will at Exs.D.1 and D.2 are concerned, the trial Court at paragraph Nos.24 to 27 appreciated the evidence of the parties and held that both the Will at Exs.D.1 and D2 are proved by the defendant Nos.3 to 5 in accordance with law after relying on judgments stated in paragraph No.26. 28. A Will is the intention of the Executor to settle the properties in favour of the beneficiaries in whose favour, he has executed the Will. The intention of the Executor assumes importance as could be traced from the record. The statements of defendant Nos.1 and 2 through the written statement manifestly established the intention of defendant Nos.1 and 2 to exclude plaintiff from the Will. The reason being, he was given sufficient properties as well as cash to start his own business and livelihood. The other defendants were staying with the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 during their lifetime with an intention to settle their properties in favour of - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 defendant Nos.3 to 5, executed the Will respectively. Even the language used in the Will at Ex.D.1 clearly depicts the intention of the testator. There are no contra materials placed by the plaintiff to dislodge the claim of defendant Nos.3 to 5 to show that the Will are surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The intention of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 unequivocally clear by the statement made in the written statement so also, the statement made in the Will at Ex.D.1, regarding exclusion of plaintiff from the properties. The defendant Nos.3 to 5 by examining the attesting witnesses, proved the Will executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 at Exs.D.1 and Ex.D.2 as per the provisions contemplated under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Evidence Act, 1872. The trial Court after going through the pleadings, evidence as well as the contents of the Will, satisfied that the intention of the Executors as expressed in the Will at Exs.D.1 and D.2 proved by the attesting witnesses. In these factual scenario, we hold that the trial Court has properly - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 exercised its duty to carry out the intention as expressed in the Will at Exs.D.1 and D.2 by the respective Executor. The plaintiff miserably failed to discharge burden casted on him to establish his claim either on the jointness of the properties or on blending of the properties in the partnership firm and failed to dislodge the claim of defendant Nos. 3 to 5 under the Will at Exs.D.1 and D.2. Conclusion:- 29. This Court after re-appreciation of entire materials placed on record, satisfied with the reason stated and conclusion arrived thereon by the trial Court for dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, in that view of the matter, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Appeal sans merit, accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i. The appeal filed by the plaintiff calling in question the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.4677/1986 by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-3) sans merit and accordingly, dismissed. - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23352-DB RFA No. 1334 of 2009 ii. In view of relationship between the parties cost made easy. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20