- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2011 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RADHABAI CHAVAN W/O.LATE GANESH RAO AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS CHIKKAHADAGANAHALLI K.R. NAGAR, HUNSOOR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 311. 2. NARAYANA RAO CHAVAN S/O.LATE GANESH RAO CHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT.NO.63, 8TH AINVASANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 052. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DEVIPRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANANTHA RAO CHAVAN SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S 1(A). JAYANTHI BAI W/O LATE ANANTRAO CHAWAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 1(B). DEEPU S/O LATE ANANTRAO CHAWAN Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.154/A(074/94CC), 4TH CROSS BEHIND BEL COMPOUND, BYRAPPA GARDEN, RAMACHANDRAPURA, JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU - 560 013. R1(B) SINCE DECEASED LEFT BEHIND HIS LRS 1(B1). SAVITHRI W/O DEEPAK RAO CHAVAN @ DEEPU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.82-A, ANJENYA TEMPLE STREET ASHWATH NAGAR, VTC, BENGALURU NORTH, RMV EXTENSION 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 094. 1(B2). KUMARI HARISHITHA D/O DEEPAK RAO CHAVAN ALIAS DEEPU AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS SINCE MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER SAVITHRI W/O DEEPAK RAO CHAWAN ALIAS DEEPU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.82-A, ANJENYA TEMPLE STREET ASHWATH NAGAR, VTC, BENGALURU NORTH, RMV EXTENSION 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 094. 2. PANDURANGA RAO CHAVAN S/O.LATE GANESH RAO CHAVAN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 AGED 50 YEARS CHIKKAHADAGANAHALLI K.R. NAGAR, HUNSOOR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 311. 3. HEMAVATHI BAI D/O.LATE GANESH RAO CHAVAN W/O.SRINIVASA RAO R/AT.T-88/5, OLD I M H AREA, NEAR HMT HOUSE GANGAMMA CIRCLE JALAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 013. 4. SUJATHA BAI D/O.LATE GANESH RAO CHAVAN AGED 30 YEARS W/O.NAGARAJ RAO NO.96, 2ND MAIN ROAD, NEAR KABEER ASHRAM, MOTHINAGAR, MUNIREDDYPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 032. 5. VINODHA BAI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O.LATE GANESH RAO CHAVAN W/O.BABU RAO, CHIKKAHADAGANAHALLI K.R. NAGAR, MYSORE. 6. LAXMAN RAO CHAVAN AGED 27 YEARS S/O.LATE GANESH RAO CHAVAN CHIKKAHADAGANAHALLI K.R. NAGAR, MYSORE - 571 311. 7. NENMAL MAJOR, FANCY STAR NO.63, 8TH MAIN ROAD, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 52. 8. RAMACHANDRA MAJOR YURK TAILORING HOUSE MENS WEAR, NO.639, 8TH MAIN ROAD, VASANTHA NAGAR BANGALORE - 32. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R5 AND R6; SRI. VENUGOPALA GOWDA R, ADVOCATE AND SRI. B.R. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A), R2 TO R6; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.03.2015, NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.01.2022, ISSUE OF NOTICE TO R8 DOES NOT ARISE; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.06.2023, APPEAL AGAINST R1(B) DISMISSED AS ABATED) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W, O-41, RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED25.09.2010 PASSED IN O.S.302/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR THE PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by defendants no.1 and 2 assailing the judgment and decree rendered by the court below in O.S.No.302/2005 wherein the Trial Court has negatived the will set up by defendant no.2 and preliminary decree is drawn granting 1/8th share to the plaintiff. The said judgment is under challenge. 2. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The family tree of the family is as under: GANESH RAO CHAVAN (LATE) -FATHER RADHA BAI CHAVAN (D-1) NARAYANA PANDURANGA ANANTHA RAO HEMAVATHI SUJATHA VINODHA LAXMAN RAO RAO CHAVAN CHAVAN BAI (D-4) BAI (D-5) BAI (D-6) RAO CHAVAN (D-3) (PLAINTIFF) CHAVAN (D-2) (D-7) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 4. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff, who is the third son of one Ganesh Rao Chavan and defendant No.1 – Radhabai Chavan, instituted a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.302/2005. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that his father, Ganesh Rao Chavan, was an ex-serviceman and that the suit schedule property was allotted to him by the Bengaluru City Improvement Board. It was further asserted that Ganesh Rao Chavan had constructed a residential house on the said property and that upon his demise, the property devolved upon his legal heirs. 5. The plaintiff contended that as one of the sons of the deceased, he is entitled to a legitimate share in the suit schedule property. He further alleged that after the death of his father, defendant No.2 had unilaterally started collecting rent from defendants Nos.8 and 9, who are tenants in the suit schedule property, and despite repeated demands, failed to share the rental income to which the plaintiff was legally entitled. It was further - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 pleaded that the plaintiff requested defendant No.2 to effect partition by metes and bounds and to allot his legitimate 1/7th share in the suit schedule property. Since defendant No.2 declined to accede to the said request, the present suit for partition and separate possession came to be instituted. 6. Upon receipt of summons, defendants Nos.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 entered appearance and filed their written statement on 28.09.2005. In their written statement, the said defendants unequivocally contended that all the legal heirs of Ganesh Rao Chavan are entitled to their respective legitimate shares in the suit schedule property and, therefore, substantially supported the case of the plaintiff. 7. Defendant No.1, who is the widow of Ganesh Rao Chavan and the mother of the plaintiff and the other defendants, having initially supported the plaintiff’s case, subsequently filed a additional written statement in the year 2008, taking a completely divergent stand. She - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 asserted that her husband Ganesh Rao Chavan had executed a will dated 10.07.1993, bequeathing the suit schedule property exclusively in favour of defendant No.2, and therefore claimed that defendant No.2 had become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. 8. Defendant No.2 filed an independent written statement and, quite significantly, took a contradictory stand. While disputing the existence of any valid testamentary arrangement by candidly admitting that his father had not executed any will, in the subsequent paragraph, namely paragraph No.13, defendant No.2 pleaded that he was nevertheless willing to give equal shares to the plaintiff and the other defendants, though asserting that his father had bequeathed the property in his favour and expressing his readiness to distribute the property as per their respective shares. The pleadings of defendant No.2 are thus patently inconsistent and self- contradictory. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 9. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed the necessary issues, including an additional issue relating to the alleged testamentary disposition, and called upon the parties to substantiate their respective claims. 10. The plaintiff led oral evidence in support of his case. Defendant No.2 also stepped into the witness box and, in order to discharge the burden cast upon him pursuant to the framing of Additional Issue No.1, produced the alleged will and examined one of the attesting witnesses as D.W.4. During the course of trial, defendant No.2 contested the suit by asserting exclusive title over the suit schedule property based on the alleged will. 11. The Trial Court, on a comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, answered Additional Issue No.1 in the negative and held that defendants Nos.1 and 2 had failed to prove the due execution and attestation of the alleged will said to have been executed by Ganesh Rao Chavan. Consequently, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 Trial Court decreed the suit for partition and allotted 1/8th share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. 12. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the present appeal. 13. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for defendants Nos.1 and 2, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, and the learned counsel appearing for the other contesting defendants. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the pleadings on record, more particularly the written statement filed by defendants Nos.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 on 28.09.2005, as well as the written statement filed by the legatee-defendant No.2 on 30.08.2005. 14. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court has independently assessed the pleadings and has meticulously examined the oral and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 documentary evidence on record. In the light of the rival submissions, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court on Additional Issue No.1, holding that defendant No.2 has failed to prove the due execution of the alleged will, suffers from perversity or warrants interference by this Court? (ii) What order? Finding on point no.(i) 15. The case on hand presents a set of peculiar circumstances. Defendant No.2, who claims to be the legatee under the alleged will, has, by his own pleadings, virtually abandoned the testamentary claim. In the written statement filed by him on 30.08.2005, defendant No.2 does not assert the will as the foundation of his title in unequivocal terms; on the contrary, his pleadings disclose a conscious abandonment of the testamentary claim. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 16. Equally significant is the stand taken by defendant No.1, the widow of the testator and mother of defendant No.2, who, in the written statement filed on 28.09.2005 along with defendants Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7, has categorically disputed the existence and validity of the alleged will. Defendant No.3, whose signature is stated to appear on the disputed will as an attesting witness, has also expressly denied the execution and attestation of the will and has actively contested the proceedings. These pleadings, when read conjointly, leave no manner of doubt that the alleged will was not only disputed by the non- legatee defendants but was also not consistently relied upon by the very person who claims to be the beneficiary there under. 17. In the backdrop of these admitted and undisputed pleadings, this Court deems it appropriate, in the first instance, to advert to the pleadings of defendant No.2 – the alleged legatee himself. For a proper appreciation of the nature of the defence set up by him - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 and to ascertain whether the will was ever unequivocally pleaded and asserted as the source of title, this Court considers it necessary to extract paragraphs Nos.11 and 13 of the written statement filed by defendant No.2, which read as under: "11. This defendant further submits that, he is spending all his earnings to fulfill his father late Ganesh Rao's desire. From application filed for allotment of site to Bangalore City Improvement Trust board till this day, this defendant spent more than 10 to 15 times value of the schedule property. It is further submitted that the defendants 1 and 3 to 7 including the plaintiff all are fully aware of all these facts. But the plaintiff's usual cunning habit intention the to of harass the grab the plaintiff with valuable property and defendant he has filed this suit for partition. No point of time, the plaintiff has stands support to his family of late Ganesh Rao Chavan or come forward to discharge the loans. It is reiterated that even though his father did not bequeathed the schedule property. This second defendant has got absolute rights over the schedule property. 13. This second defendant submits that, if the family members including the plaintiff have ready to take equal share in which this defendant performed maintain the joint marriage, education constructions including family - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 and interest from applied to above sit to till this day though his father late Ganesh Rao Chavan bequeathed the property by will this defendant has ready to distribute schedule property according to their share." EMPHASIS SUPPLIED 18. The extracted pleadings unmistakably disclose a most unusual and inconsistent course of conduct on the part of defendant No.2, the alleged legatee. In paragraph No.11 of his written statement, more particularly in the concluding three lines, defendant No.2 has categorically and unequivocally disputed the very existence and execution of the alleged will said to have been executed by his father in his favour. In paragraph No.13, he proceeds a step further and completely abandons the testamentary claim, expressly stating his willingness to share the suit schedule property along with his siblings. Such pleadings are wholly irreconcilable with a claim of exclusive title founded on a will and clearly demonstrate that the alleged will was not the basis of defendant No.2’s defence at the stage of pleadings. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 19. In view of the stand taken by defendant No.2 in the written statement filed in the year 2005, it is evident that there are no specific or foundational pleadings explaining or dispelling the suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged will marked at Ex.P.142. It is settled law that in cases where a will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the burden squarely lies on the propounder not only to prove due execution and attestation, but also to plead and explain such suspicious circumstances. In the absence of any such pleadings, the second defendant could not have been permitted to set up a testamentary claim during the course of trial. 20. However, despite having abandoned the will at the pleading stage, defendant No.2 sought to retract from his own admissions during the course of trial and attempted to resurrect the testamentary claim by producing the will and examining an alleged attesting witness as D.W.4. This belated attempt to set up the will, without any supporting pleadings, is legally impermissible - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 and strikes at the very root of the defence sought to be introduced at the stage of evidence. 21. It is further significant to note that even the oral evidence adduced through D.W.4 falls woefully short of the statutory requirements. A careful reading of the chief- examination of D.W.4 reveals that the witness has not fully or cogently narrated the circumstances under which the alleged will came to be executed by the testator, Ganesh Rao Chavan. There is no clear or convincing account of the mental and physical condition of the testator at the relevant point of time, the manner in which the document was prepared, read over or explained, or the circumstances attending its execution and attestation. Such omissions assume greater significance in the backdrop of the inconsistent and contradictory pleadings of the alleged legatee himself. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 22. In this view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the chief-examination of D.W.4, which reads as under: "1.ನನೆ ಾ ಮತು ಪ ಾಗಳ ಪಣ ಪಚಯರುತ ೆ. ಾಗಳ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಾಗೂ ಪ ಾಗಳ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಮುಖ!ಸ#$ಾದ ಗ%ೇ' $ಾ( )ೌಾ+ರವರು ಈ .ಂೆ ಸು/ಾರು 1993 ರ01 ಾ ಮತು ಪ ಾ-2 ಮತು ಅವರ 3ಾ4 $ಾ5ಾ6ಾ4, 7ಾಂಡುರಂಗ )ೌಾ+ ಮತು ಇತರರ ಸಮು:ಖದ01 ಮರಣ ;ಾಸನವನು< ಬ$ೆರು3ಾ $ೆ. ಈ ಮರಣ ;ಾಸನವನು< ನನ<, =ೕ>ಾಸಭಟ@ರ ಮತು ಎ Bೆ ೋಂದ$ಾವ ಸಮು:ಖದ01 ಮತು ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸದಸ!ರ ಸಮು:ಖದ01 ಓ ನನ<ನು< DೕEೆ ೇFದ =ೕ>ಾಸಭಟ@ ಮತು ಎ G ೋಂದ$ಾ( ರವರನು< HಾIJಾK 3ೆೆದುLೊಂMದುN, ನಮ:ಗಳ ಸಮು:ಖದ01 ಮರಣ ;ಾಸನLೆO ಎಡೈ ೆ6ೆQಟ@ನು< ಮರುತು /ಾಡುವRದುರ ಮೂಲಕ ಸ. /ಾMರು3ಾ $ೆ. ಸದ ಮರಣ ;ಾಸನವನು< 3ೋTದ$ೆ Uಾನು ಗು ಸು3ೆ ೕUೆ." 23. On a careful reading of the chief-examination of D.W.4, this Court finds that the mandatory statutory requirements under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are not complied with in any manner whatsoever. The evidence tendered is conspicuously cryptic, vague, and mechanical, and wholly fails to disclose the essential - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 circumstances surrounding the alleged execution and attestation of the will. The witness has not spoken to the manner in which the document was executed, whether the testator affixed his mark or signature in his presence, whether the attesting witnesses signed in the presence of the testator, or whether the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution. In the absence of such foundational evidence, the due execution and attestation of the will remain unproved. 24. What further deepens the suspicious circumstances is a glaring inconsistency emerging from the record with regard to the mode of execution of the alleged will. It is borne out from the undisputed material on record that the testator, Ganesh Rao Chavan, who was an ex-serviceman, was accustomed to putting his signature. However, in the alleged will, the second defendant–legatee asserts that the testator has affixed only his left thumb impression (LTM). No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming in the pleadings or in the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 evidence as to why a person who was habitually signing documents would suddenly resort to affixing a thumb impression, particularly when no material is placed to indicate any physical incapacity or impairment. 25. The suspicion surrounding this aspect is further compounded by the suggestions put forth by the second defendant himself during the cross-examination of defendant No.5, examined as D.W.5. The tenor and content of the suggestions made by the second defendant are wholly inconsistent with his case and clearly undermine the very foundation of the testamentary claim sought to be set up. These suggestions assume significance as they emanate from the propounder of the will and materially affect the credibility of the alleged testamentary arrangement. 26. In order to appreciate the nature of the contradictions and the admissions emerging from the cross-examination, this Court deems it appropriate to - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 extract the relevant portion of the cross-examination of defendant No.5, examined as D.W.5, which reads as under: "ಈಗ ಸದ ಾನು, ನನ ಾ , ನನ ೆಂಡ ಮತು ನನ ಇಬರು ಮಕಳ ಕೂ ೊಂಡು ೆ ಆ" ನಗರದ#$ %ಾಸ &ಾಡುೇ%ೆ. ನನ ತಂ(ೆಯವರು ತಮ+ ,ಂಚ. ಹಣವನು ೆ ಆ" ನಗರದ#$1ೕ ಪ3ೆಯುದ4ರು ಅಂಾ ಸೂ6ಸುವ7ದು 8ಜ. ನನ ತಂ(ೆಯವ:;ೆ ವಯ<ಾ=ದ ನಂತರ ಾನು ಕೂ3ಾ ಅವರ >ೊೆಯ#$ ,ಂಚ. ಹಣ ತರಲು ೊಗು(ೆ4. ನನ ತಂ(ೆಯವರು <ೆ@ೕA BಾಂC ಆD ಇಂEಾFಂದ ,ಂಚ. ಹಣ ಪ3ೆಯುದ4ರು. ನನ ತಂ(ೆಯವರು ಸG &ಾಡುದ4ರು. HIೕ8%ಾಸ ಭಟ@ರ <ಾಲ ೕ:ಸುವ ಕು:ತು ಾನು ನನ ತಂ(ೆ;ೆ ಒಂದು (ಾಖNೆಯನು ಬOೆದು ೊP@(ೆ4 ಅಂಾ ಸೂ6ಸುವ7ದು ಸುಳQ." 27. On a closer scrutiny of the extracted portion of the cross-examination conducted by defendant No.2, it clearly emerges that defendant No.2 himself has elicited admissions which completely demolish the testamentary claim set up by him. While cross-examining defendant No.3, who is one of his brothers, defendant No.2 has elicited a categorical admission that the testator, Ganesh Rao Chavan, was drawing pension and that till his demise he was regularly visiting the bank with the assistance of - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 defendant No.2 and was putting his signature on the pension receipts. These admissions, which emanate from the propounder of the will himself, assume great significance. When the legatee himself admits that the testator was capable of signing documents till his death, the assertion that the testator affixed only a left thumb impression on the alleged will remains wholly unexplained. These crucial suggestions made by defendant No.2 during cross-examination of defendant No.3 strike at the very root of the defence and further reinforce the suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged will. 28. The next crucial suspicious circumstance which warrants consideration by this Court is the conduct of defendants Nos.1 and 2 at the stage of pleadings. It is borne out from the record that neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 set up the alleged will when the suit was instituted and written statements were filed in the year 2005. On the contrary, in their respective written statements, both defendants had clearly given a go-by to - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 the alleged testamentary arrangement. However, a completely inconsistent stand was sought to be taken by defendant No.1–mother in the year 2008, wherein she attempted to support defendant No.2 by admitting the execution of the will. Such a belated volte-face cannot efface or dilute the categorical admissions made in the written statements filed in 2005. 29. It is well settled that admissions contained in pleadings occupy a higher pedestal and possess strong probative and evidentiary value. The admissions made in the common written statement filed by defendants Nos.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in 2005 are binding not only on the legatee– defendant No.2 but also on defendant No.1. These admissions cannot be lightly brushed aside and must be accorded due weight in terms of Sections 18, 19 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 30. Yet another circumstance which casts a serious cloud over the genuineness of the alleged will is the active - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 participation of defendants Nos.1 and 2 in its alleged execution. The attesting witness has candidly admitted in his cross-examination that defendants Nos.1 and 2 were present when the will was prepared at the instance of the testator. Such active involvement of beneficiaries in the preparation and execution of a will is a well-recognised suspicious circumstance, particularly when the will confers exclusive benefit on one of them. This admission further dents the credibility of the alleged testamentary arrangement and deepens the suspicion surrounding its execution. 31. More importantly, the legatee himself having disputed the will in his written statement, there are no foundational pleadings by defendant No.2 asserting that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind or that the will was executed voluntarily, without coercion, undue influence, or external pressure. The subsequent attempt made by defendant No.2 during trial, supported belatedly by defendant No.1, is clearly an afterthought, - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 intended to overcome the deficiencies in the pleadings. Such an attempt has failed to dispel the multiple suspicious circumstances enveloping the alleged will. 32. A perusal of the records would indicate that there is a fleeting and formal assertion in the written statement filed by defendant No.2 with regard to the testator being in a sound state of mind. However, when the pleadings are read as a whole and in proper context, it unmistakably emerges that defendant No.2 has not set up the alleged will as the foundation of his defence. On the contrary, in the very same written statement, defendant No.2 has virtually disputed the testamentary arrangement and has expressly conveyed his willingness to share the suit schedule property along with his siblings. Such pleadings are wholly inconsistent with a defence founded on a will and render the isolated assertion regarding soundness of mind legally inconsequential. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 33. It is settled law that pleadings cannot be read in isolation or in a piecemeal manner. The Court is required to examine the pleadings holistically to ascertain the real nature of the defence. When so read, the written statement of defendant No.2 clearly discloses that the testamentary claim was neither unequivocally pleaded nor consistently asserted. The subsequent attempt made by defendant No.2 during the course of trial to rely upon the will and to prove the same by examining an attesting witness is therefore nothing but a belated and feeble attempt to introduce a case that was consciously abandoned at the pleading stage. 34. In matters relating to proof of wills, particularly where suspicious circumstances are alleged, the burden lies heavily on the propounder not only to lead evidence but also to lay a clear and consistent factual foundation in the pleadings. An equivocal pleading coupled with contradictory assertions cannot satisfy this requirement. The limited reference to soundness of mind in the written - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 statement, in the absence of a clear assertion of due execution, voluntary disposition, and exclusive reliance on the will, is insufficient to discharge the statutory burden cast upon defendant No.2. 35. Viewed in this light, the Trial Court was fully justified in holding that the will was not duly set up at the stage of pleadings and that the attempt to prove it during trial was an afterthought. This circumstance, when considered along with the other suspicious features surrounding the alleged will, further reinforces the conclusion that defendant No.2 has failed to establish the due execution and genuineness of the testamentary arrangement. 36. In view of the fact that defendant No.2 has not set up the will as the basis of his title in the written statement and has, on the contrary, disputed its existence and expressed willingness to share the property with all the siblings, this Court is of the considered view that the - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 Trial Court has rightly adverted to all the material and significant factors. The inference drawn by the Trial Court that the testamentary arrangement is doubtful and was belatedly set up by defendant No.2 with the support of defendant No.1 is fully justified. 37. The findings recorded by the Trial Court on Additional Issue No.1 do not suffer from any infirmity, perversity, or illegality warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Defendant No.2 has miserably failed to prove the due execution and attestation of the alleged will, particularly in the light of his own admissions contained in paragraph No.11 of the written statement. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the Negative. 38. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5546 RFA No. 337 of 2011 ORDER The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12