- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100304 OF 2019 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. MURIGEPPA S/O. BASALINGAPPA PANTAR, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: J.P. NAGAR, NEAR BASAVESHWAR SAW MILL, KARATAGI-583229, TQ: GANGAVATHI. 2. SHARANAPPA S/O. BASALINGAPPA PANTAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: J.P. NAGAR, NEAR BASAVESHWAR SAW MILL, KARATAGI-583229, TQ: GANGAVATHI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C.S.SHETTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SHIVAKUMAR S/O. BASALINGAPPA PANTAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s. 1(A). SUVARNA W/O. SHIVAKUMAR PANTAR Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.25 14:29:44 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER. 1(B). NIKHILKUMAR S/O. SHIVAKUMAR PANTAR AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS. 1(C). KIRANKUMAR S/O. SHIVAKUMAR PANTAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS. 1(D). BASAVAPRABHU S/O. SHIVAKUMAR PANTAR AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, ALL ARE R/O: J.P. NAGAR, NEAR BASAVESHWAR SAW MILL, POST. KARATAGI-583229, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP G.DESHPANDE AND SRI. BASAVARAJ B.KARADI, ADVOCATES) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.115/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GANGAVATHI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) Captioned appeal is by unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No.115/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gangavathi. Plaintiffs’ suit seeking relief of partition is dismissed. Hence, the captioned appeal assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No.115/2015. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The family tree is as under: P.Basalingappa (21-08-2013) Murigeppa Sharanappa Shivakumar P1 P2 D1 4. Plaintiffs and defendant are sons of one P.Basalingappa. The present plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession. The suit is filed alleging that the defendant under the garb of securing loan from the bank and other financial institutions - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 has concocted and created a Will deed alleging that his father P.Basalingappa has bequeathed the suit schedule properties. Plaintiffs claim that the Will deed is not genuine and that their father was not in a sound disposal state of mind. The plaintiffs at paragraph No.5 in the plaint though admitted the partition among their father and three sons, however, have tried to dispute the registered partition deed effected on 05.06.2002 and they have further disputed the alleged Will deed dated 22.07.2010. Plaintiffs have further pleaded that having noticed the change of entries in the revenue records based on the Will, it is alleged that the defendant tried to obstruct plaintiffs’ joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the present suit is filed by both the plaintiffs seeking 1/3rd share each. 5. Defendant on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant on the contrary contended that during the life time of their father - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 P.Basalingappa, there was a partition in terms of the registered partition deed dated 05.06.2002 and the suit schedule properties which were allotted to their father, P.Basalingappa was in his exclusive possession. The defendant contended that during his lifetime, out of love and affection, his father has bequeathed the suit schedule properties under a registered Will dated 22.07.2010. Defendant also contended that the testamentary arrangement made by their father P.Basalingappa is a genuine document and this is preceded by a proper registered partition deed, thereby their father P.Basalingappa being the absolute owner had every right to make a testamentary arrangement. 6. Plaintiffs and defendant to substantiate their respective claims have led in their oral and documentary evidence. Defendant apart from producing the registered Will which is marked at Exhibit D3 has examined the attesting witness as DW2. The Trial Court on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, answered issue No.2 in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 the affirmative and proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of partition. The said judgment is under challenge. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, reiterating the grounds urged, vehemently contends that the Will in question is enveloped in suspicious circumstances. It is argued that the Will fails to make any provision for the plaintiffs and the defendant’s mother, who was alive at the time of its alleged execution. The complete exclusion of the wife of the testator, according to the plaintiffs, casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the document. This material omission, it is submitted, was not given due consideration by the Trial Court while assessing the genuineness of the Will. Drawing the Court’s attention to the evidence of the sole defendant examined as DW1, learned counsel emphasizes that the testator had equal love and affection for all three of his sons. He further highlights discrepancies in the testimonies of DW1 and DW2, and argues that the defendant, as the principal - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 beneficiary, has failed to satisfactorily dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. 8. In response, the learned counsel for the defendant strenuously argues that the admissions made by the plaintiffs during cross-examination, coupled with the successful confrontation of the plaintiffs with the signatures and photographs appearing on the Will, conclusively establish the genuineness of the document. While acknowledging that registration is not mandatory for a Will, counsel contends that the fact that the Will is duly registered, and contains the photograph of P.Basalingappa – the testator, lends further credence to its authenticity. It is further submitted that Plaintiff No.1 has unequivocally identified the signature of his father on the disputed Will, which has been marked as Exhibit D2. Additionally, the photograph of the testator has been marked as Exhibit D1. These admissions, it is urged, decisively affirm the validity and execution of the Will. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 9. Heard the learned counsel on record. We have meticulously examined the pleadings of both the parties. We have also independently assessed oral and documentary evidence. Following point that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the finding of the Trial Court on issue No.2 in answering affirmative suffers from perversity and warrants interference at the hands of this Court?” 10. Upon a meticulous scrutiny of the documentary records placed before the Court, it becomes abundantly clear that there was a family partition effected between P.Basalingappa and his three sons. This partition was formalized through a registered partition deed dated 05.06.2002. As per the recitals and stipulations contained in the said deed, the suit schedule properties in question were unequivocally allotted to the exclusive share of P.Basalingappa. In this backdrop, the pivotal issue that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the Will, which is marked as Exhibit D3, is surrounded by - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 suspicious circumstances that cast doubt upon its genuineness and due execution. 11. The determination of the authenticity and voluntariness of the Will gains significance in view of several key admissions elicited during the cross- examination of the plaintiffs. These admissions bear directly upon the credibility and validity of the Will. One of the most telling pieces of evidence is the photograph of the testator affixed to Exhibit D3, coupled with the fact that the signature of the testator appearing therein was identified by Plaintiff No.1. These aspects are of considerable evidentiary value and have the potential to decisively resolve the dispute between the parties regarding the legitimacy of the Will. 12. In light of the above, the cross-examination of Plaintiff No.1, who has deposed as PW1, assumes critical importance. It is therefore considered appropriate and necessary to reproduce the relevant portions of PW1’s cross-examination, which shed light on the surrounding - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 circumstances of the execution of the Will and the plaintiff’s own acknowledgment regarding its authenticity. The relevant excerpts from the cross-examination of PW1 are as follows: £Á£ÀÄ r¥sÁªÀÄð ªÀgÉUÉ PÀ°wzÉÝãÉ. £À£ÀUÉ EAVèõÀ §zÀ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ §gÉAiÀÄ®Ä §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ F PÉù£À ªÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß N¢zÉÝãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆ®zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ F PÉøÀÄ ºÁQzÉÝãÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆ®zÀ ªÉÄî ºÀPÀÄÌ EzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ fªÀAvÀ EzÁÝUÀ 2002 gÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉ, ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀqÀÄªÉ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ ¥Á®Ä«¨sÁUÀ ¥ÀvÀæ DVzÉ. CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj, ¸ÀzÀj £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ »¸Áì ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀªÉà J¯Áè ¥Á®ÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä »¸ÉìUÉ §AzÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ CAzÀgÉ ¤d. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ »¸ÉìUÉ §AzÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¤d. »¸Éì DzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ¢AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zɪÀÅ. CAzÀgÉ ¤d. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÉÆqÀ£É ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ fêÀvÀ PÁ¯ÁzÀ°è DzÀAvÀºÀ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ »¸Áì ¥ÀvÀæ ¸Àj¬Ä®è ºÁUÀÆ £À£ÀUÉ PÀrªÉÄ »¸Éì §A¢zÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è EA¢£ÀªÀgÉUÉ ¥Àæ±Éß ªÀiÁr¯Áè. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°è 2010 gÀ°è MAzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ ªÀÄgÀt ±Á¸À£À §gÉzÀgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ ªÀÄgÀt ±Á¸À£À §gÉ¢zÁÝgÉ. CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî. FUÀ ¸ÁQëUÉ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ ªÀÄgÀt ±Á¸À£À §gÉ¢zÁÝgÉ CAzÀgÉ - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 ¸ÀļÀÄî FUÀ ¸ÁQëUÉ £ÉÆAzÁ¬Äw ªÀÄÈvÀÄå ¥ÀvÀæ vÉÆÃj¸À¯ÁVzÉ. CzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛ vÉÆÃj¹ EªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÉÄà J£ÀÄߪÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ M¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr 2 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. FUÀ ¸ÁQëUÉ MAzÀÄ ¸À» vÉÆÃj¹ EzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ¸À» JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ CzÀÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ M¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤r: 2 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ vÁªÀÅ ¸ÀĨÁâgÁªï JA§ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉaÑ£À £ÀA©PÉ EvÀÄÛ. CAzÀgÉ ¤d. FUÀ ¸ÁQëUÉ MAzÀÄ ¸À» vÉÆÃj¹ CzÀÄ ¯ÁªÀÅ ¸ÀĨÁâgÀªï EªÀgÀ ¸À»AiÉÄà J£ÀÄߪÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ¯Áè JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ wÃjPÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ FvÀ£À ªÀÄÈvÀÄå¥ÀvÀæzÀ¢ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä Cfð PÉÆnÖzÁÝ CAzÀgÉ F PÉù£À°è ºÁdgÀ ¥Àr¹zÀ Dgï n ¹UÀ¼ÀÄ zÁªÁ D¹Û £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ªÉÆzÀ®Ä EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸ÀĪÀAvÀºÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj ¤¦: 6 £ÀÄß ¸Éà±À¯ï vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀ CªÀgÀÄ J¹ D¦üù¤AzÀ jªÀiÁåAqï DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢:7-11- 2015 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAzÀgÉ ¤d. »¸Àì DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ JAzÀÆ PÀÆqÁ £Á£ÀÄ zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ dAn ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ°è E¯Áè CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è ¸ÁQë vÀ£Àß ¸Àé ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ wÃjPÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ¢AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ dAn ¸Áé¢ü£ÀzÀ°è EzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà »¸Áì ºÀPÀÄÌ PÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. 2£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ DvÀ£À ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà C¢üPÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ PÉÆnÖ¯Áè. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä D¹ÛUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ªÀÄÈvÀÄå¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ DUÀ° 2£Éà ªÁ¢UÉ DUÀ° zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà »¸Áì §gÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀjUÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ EzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄgÀÄ«ZÁgÀuÉ E¯Áè. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 (¸ÁQëAiÀÄ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄÄ ºÉýzÀÝ£ÀÄß vÉgÉzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀjUÉ GPÀÛ¯ÉÃR£À ¤Ãr ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁr¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ) 13. Upon a thorough examination of the cross- examination of the witnesses, it becomes evidently clear that the defendant has successfully elicited material admissions that fortify his case. Most notably, it has come on record through the cross-examination of Plaintiff No.1 that the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of their father, P.Basalingappa, in a family partition. Plaintiff No.1 has candidly admitted that following the said partition, the properties exclusively allotted to P.Basalingappa were duly reflected in the relevant land records, including the RTC. Furthermore, he has unequivocally admitted that post-partition, the plaintiffs and the defendant began residing separately, marking a clear division in both property and residence. Significantly, Plaintiff No.1 also conceded that P.Basalingappa began residing with the defendant and placed complete trust in DW2, who is one of the attesting witnesses to the Will. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 These admissions are of considerable evidentiary value and go to the root of the case. 14. In light of the above admissions and the portion of the cross-examination that has been culled out, the Court finds it pertinent to note that the Will marked as Exhibit D3 was specifically put to Plaintiff No.1 during his testimony. In response, Plaintiff No.1 identified the signature of his father on the Will, thereby lending credence to its authenticity. These admissions, in the considered view of this Court, effectively eliminate the suspicious circumstances alleged by the plaintiffs regarding the execution of the Will. Although the plaintiffs have contended in the plaint that the Will is a concocted document and further alleged that the testator was not of sound disposing mind at the relevant point in time, there is a stark absence of any substantive cross-examination directed at DW2 to discredit the mental capacity of the testator. This omission, coupled with the positive - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 identification of the testator’s signature, substantially weakens the plaintiffs' challenge to the Will. 15. It is well established through a catena of judgments rendered by this Court and other superior Courts that the scope of judicial scrutiny in matters involving Wills is narrowly circumscribed. Courts are enjoined to exercise great caution while evaluating the genuineness and validity of testamentary instruments. Only in cases where suspicious circumstances are glaring and the evidence on record renders it manifestly apparent that the Will is fabricated or forged, will the Courts intervene to reject such instruments. Otherwise, a duly executed and registered Will, particularly when supported by reliable testimony of attesting witnesses, ought to be given due sanctity in accordance with the principles of testamentary succession. 16. In the present case, although the plaintiffs have gone to the extent of even challenging the validity of the partition deed itself, the defendant has successfully - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 demonstrated, through cogent documentary and oral evidence, that a valid and binding partition had indeed taken place between P.Basalingappa and his three sons. The evidence further establishes that P.Basalingappa was residing with the defendant during the later years of his life. Importantly, the Will itself contains an express recital to the effect that the plaintiffs had failed to take care of their father, which compelled him to make a testamentary disposition in favour of the defendant, who had been taking care of him. The fact that Plaintiff No.1 identified his father's signature on the Will, and in the absence of any credible evidence to suggest that the testator was not in a sound disposing state of mind, bolsters the defendant’s case. Furthermore, the testimony of DW2, who categorically deposed that he attested the Will after reading and understanding its contents, dispels any suspicion surrounding the execution of the Will. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs, who had separated from their father and failed in their filial obligations, are not legally justified in - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 questioning either the partition or the subsequent testamentary disposition made by P.Basalingappa in favour of the defendant. The challenge to the partition deed by the plaintiffs appears to be a desperate and strategic attempt to overcome the consequences of the Will. 17. For all the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds that the defendant has successfully discharged the burden of proving the genuineness and due execution of the Will. The documentary and oral evidence on record clearly demonstrate that P.Basalingappa did not die intestate; rather, he executed a valid and registered Will, thereby bequeathing the suit schedule properties to the defendant, who had rendered care and support to him during his final years. In this context, the contentions and arguments advanced by the plaintiffs, lacking evidentiary support, are found to be devoid of merit. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration regarding the genuineness and validity of the Will is answered in the negative. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6504-DB RFA No. 100304 of 2019 18. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RSH / Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16