- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.575 OF 2010 (RES) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 714 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ) IN RFA No. 575/2010 BETWEEN: 1(A) 1(B) 1(C) SMT. G SHANKARAMMA W/O S KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O BEHIND TALUK OFFICE SHIKARIPURA TOWN SHIMOGA DISTRICT SINCE DECEASED BY LRS S.KRISHNAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S.K.VENKATESH S/O S.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S.K.SIDDHARAMESH S/O S.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SHIVA SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.ADHITYA D AND R.G.BHAT, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 AND: 1. SMT.CHANDRAMMA W/O MANI B AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O HIREKALAVATTI KAPPANAHALLI POST SHIKARIPURA TALUK 2. KAMAKSHAMMA W/O PAYANI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O HIIREKALAVATTI KAPPANAHALLI POST SHIKARIPURA TALUK 3. AADILAKSHMAMMA W/O PICHCHANDI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O SAVALANGA HONNAHALLI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT 4. 4(A) 4(B) M.VISHWANATHA S/O M.MURUGESHAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O HIREKALAVATTI KAPPANAHALLI POST SHIKARIPURA TALUK SINCE DECEASED BY LRS SMT.JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SMT.KALYANIA D/O LATE VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 4(C) 4(D) 4(E) 4(F) SMT.MEENA D/O LATE VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS MS.USHA D/O LATE VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS MS.SUDHA D/O LATE VISHWANATHA SINCE DEAD, HER LRS ARE ALREADY BROUGHT ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NOS.4(A) TO 4(D) AND 4(F) SRI.KUMAR S/O LATE VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS THE RESPONDENT NO.4(A) TO (F) ARE RESIDING AT HIREKALAVATTI KAPPANAHALLI POST SHIKARIPURA TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M RAVINDRANATH & SRI.M.JAI PRAKASH REDDY, ADVOCATES FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI.G.S.BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.4(A TO D AND F) V/O/D 17.12.2018 R.4(A TO D AND F) ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R.4(E)) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.12.2009 PASSED IN - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 OS.NO.2/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIMOGA, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR GRANT OF PROBATE AND ETC. IN RSA NO. 714/2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.G.SHANKARAMA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS SMT.S.K.ROOPA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT ARESINAGERE VILLAGE HITLA POST SHIKARIPURA TALUK PIN-577 427 2. S.K.VENKATESH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT BEHIND TAHASILDARS OFFICE ROAD SHIKARIPURA TOWN PIN-577 427 3. S.K.NAGARATHNA W/O KARIBASAVA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT MARASHETTY HALLI VILLAGE KALLIHALA CIRCLE HOLE HONNUR HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK PIN-577301 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 4. S.K.SIDDA RAMESH S/O KRISHNAPPA MAJOR RESIDING AT BEHIND TAHASILDARS OFFICE ROAD SHIKARIPURA TOWN PIN- 577 427 5. S.KRISHNAPPA S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT BEHIND TAHASILDARS OFFICE ROAD SHIKARIPURA TOWN PIN-577 427 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SHIVA SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.TRIVIKRAM S, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NOS.1, 3 AND 4 SRI.SHIVA SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 5) AND: 1. SMT CHANDRAMMA W/O S MANI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SMT.KAMAKSHAMMA W/O PAYANI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT HIREKAL VATHI KAPPANHALLI POST - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 KASABA HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK PIN - 577427 3(A) 3(B) 3(C) SMT.ADILAKSHMAMMA W/O PICHANDI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O SAVLANGA HONNALI TALUK PIN - 577225 REPRESENTED BY LRS., I.E., RESPONDENT NOS.3A, 3B AND 3C. GEETHA D/O PICHANDI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS SHIVAKUMAR D/O PICHANDI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS SURESH D/O PICHANDI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.3A, 3B AND 3C ARE RESIDING AT R/O SAVLANGA HONNALI DAVANGERE - 577225 4. 5. SMT.JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE M.VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SMT KALYANI W/O JAYAAM AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 6. SMT.MEENA W/O MOHAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS D/O LATE M.VISHWANATHA R/O NAVAKOTIPURA SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577427 7. USHA D/O LATE M.VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 8. SUDHA D/O LATE M.VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.8 IS REPRESENTED BY LRS I.E. RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 7 AND 9. 9. KUMAR S/O ATE M VISWANATHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS4, 5, 7, 8 AND 9 ARE RESIDING AT HIREKALVATHI VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK PIN- 577 427 10. SMT.SOWBAGYAMMA W/O J NAGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT HIREKAL VATHI VILLAGE KAPPANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 SHIKARIPURA TALUK PIN-577427 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHIVA KUMARA K S, ADVOCATE FOR R.1, R.2 AND R.3(A TO C); SRI.G.S.BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.4, R.5, R.6, R.7 & R.9; R.10 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED R.4 TO 7 & R.9 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R.8 V/O/D 23.09.2024 ) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED IN RA NO.199/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.131/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIKARIPURA AND ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT These two appeals are interconnected and therefore, pursuant to the special order, both appeals were clubbed and heard together. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 2. Brief facts of the case are as under; The proceedings originated from a petition filed by the plaintiff – Smt.G.Shankaramma under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1925") seeking grant of probate in respect of a Will dated 15.12.1997, alleged to have been executed by late N.Murugeshan s/o Narayanaswamy. The said probate proceedings were contested by the daughters and the son of the testator and consequently, the petition stood converted into a suit and was re-numbered as O.S.No.2/2007. 3. In the petition filed under Section 276 of the "Act, 1925", the plaintiff asserted that the testator – N.Murugeshan was the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.72 measuring 10 acres, situated at Hothanakatte Village, Shikaripura Taluk, which was granted in his favour by the competent authority. It was further pleaded that during his old age, the testator was looked after and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 maintained by the plaintiff and that, out of love and affection, he bequeathed 4 acres out of Sy.No.72 in her favour under a registered Will dated 15.12.1997. 4. Simultaneously, the daughters of late N.Murugeshan, who were arrayed as defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.2/2007, instituted a separate suit for declaration in O.S.No.131/2007, seeking declaration of joint ownership along with defendant No.1 – Sri M.Vishwanatha in respect of land bearing Sy.No.72. In O.S.No.131/2007, the daughters were arrayed as plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. 5. In the plaint filed in O.S.No.131/2007, the plaintiffs unequivocally pleaded that the entire extent of 10 acres in Sy.No.72 was a granted land in favour of their father and thereby acknowledged that the property was the self-acquired property of late N.Murugeshan. It was further pleaded that during his lifetime, the testator effected an oral family partition, under which 6 acres in Sy.No.72 were allotted to plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, described as - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 Schedule ‘B’ property, while the remaining 4 acres were jointly allotted to defendant No.1 – M.Vishwanatha and the testator, described as Schedule ‘C’ property. 6. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.131/2007 also questioned the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 – M.Vishwanatha and his wife in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 as well as the sale deed executed in favour of Smt.G.Shankaramma. Accordingly, the daughters sought a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 24.08.2006, registered as Document No.1322 on 30.08.2006 in respect of 1½ acres forming part of Schedule ‘B’ property was not binding on their shares. They also sought the relief of permanent injunction, asserting exclusive title over the said 6 acres. 7. Before the Probate Court in O.S.No.2/2007, the legatee – Smt.G.Shankaramma, examined a son of a pre-deceased attesting witness and produced the alleged Will to establish its due execution. Upon meticulous - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Probate Court held that the legatee had failed to prove the due execution of the Will in accordance with law. Consequently, the suit in O.S.No.2/2007 was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009. 8. In the declaratory suit filed by the daughters in O.S.No.131/2007, Smt.G.Shankaramma, who was arrayed as defendant No.5, once again set up the very same Will. An additional issue regarding proof of the Will was framed. Significantly, the legatee did not disclose or produce the judgment rendered by the Probate Court, wherein the Will had already been held to be not proved. In the absence of such disclosure, the Trial Court proceeded to examine the issue independently and erroneously held that Smt.G.Shankaramma had succeeded in proving the testamentary disposition in respect of 4 acres in Sy.No.72. 9. Consequently, by moulding the relief, the Trial Court decreed the suit by granting 1/4th share each to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 in respect of 6 acres, while excluding 4 acres covered under the Will from partition. Thus, the Will, which had already been negatived by the Probate Court, was indirectly held to be proved in O.S.No.131/2007. 10. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the subsequent purchaser, who was arrayed as defendant No.4–Smt.Sowbagyamma, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.150/2011. The legal heirs of Smt.G.Shankaramma also preferred an appeal in R.A.No.199/2011 contending that the Trial Court was not justified in moulding the relief and passing a preliminary decree for partition in the absence of any prayer for partition and separate possession. 11. It is relevant to note that notwithstanding the fact that Smt.G.Shankaramma stood to benefit under the decree, inasmuch as 4 acres allegedly covered under the Will were excluded, her legal heirs still chose to prefer an - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the legal heirs of Smt.G.Shankaramma. The said dismissal is now called in question in the present Second Appeal in RSA No.714/2019. 12. This Court deems it appropriate to extract the substantial questions of law framed in RSA No.714/2019, vide order dated 17.01.2025, which read as follows: (i) Whether the court below is right in granting the relief which runs contrary to the prayer sought for, more particularly, when the plaintiffs sought for the relief of joint ownership and joint possession of 'B' schedule property, which was rejected and could order for severance of status? (ii) Whether the courts below have failed to note that the relief granted runs contrary to the intention of the parties? (iii) Whether the courts below were right in moulding the relief and order severance of status when they specifically seek for joint ownership and joint possession? - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 (iv) Whether the finding of both trial court and first Appellate Court are against the pleadings, evidence and arguments of the parties? (v) Whether the first Appellate Court was right in not formulating the proper points for consideration as mandated under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC? (vi) Whether the judgment and decree of both the courts below are perverse and arbitrary? 13. This Court also deems it fit to formulate Additional Substantial question of law in RSA No.714/2019; (i) Whether the Trial Court in O.S.No.131/2007 having moulded the relief erred in not protecting the right and title acquired by G.Shankaramma through M.Vishwanath under two sale deeds dated 21.02.2000 and 07.07.2000? 14. This Court also deems it appropriate to formulate the following points for consideration in RFA No.575/2010: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 (i) Whether the finding recorded by the Probate Court in O.S.No.2/2007, holding that the legatee – Smt.G.Shankaramma has failed to prove the due execution of the Will dated 15.12.1997, suffers from perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference by the Appellate Court? (ii) Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court in O.S.No.131/2007, while answering Additional Issue No.2 in the affirmative and holding that Smt.G.Shankaramma has succeeded in proving the Will dated 15.12.1997 in respect of 4 acres of land, is perverse and contrary to the judgment and decree passed by the Probate Court in O.S.No.2/2007? 15. Having formulated the points for consideration in RFA No.575/2010, this Court now proceeds to answer the substantial questions of law framed in RSA No.714/2019. Findings on Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 to 6 in RSA No.714/2019 16. On a closer examination of the findings recorded by the Trial Court in O.S.No.131/2007, it is not in dispute - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 that the plaintiffs therein, who are the daughters of late N.Murugeshan, have unequivocally and candidly admitted in the plaint that the suit land bearing Sy.No.72 measuring 10 acres was a granted land in favour of their father and therefore, constituted the absolute and self-acquired property of late N.Murugeshan. In view of such categorical admissions, the relief of declaration sought by the plaintiffs to declare themselves as absolute owners in respect of Schedule ‘B’ property measuring 6 acres could not have been granted, as the plaintiffs could not have asserted exclusive title to the exclusion of the other legal heir, namely defendant No.1. 17. The Trial Court, while appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, was therefore justified in holding that upon the demise of N.Murugeshan, plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.1 would succeed to and inherit the estate left behind by him as his legal heirs. Accordingly, the Trial Court proceeded to mould the relief by excluding 4 acres described as Schedule ‘C’ property, which was - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 claimed to be covered under a registered Will dated 15.12.1997, and granted 1/4th share each to plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 in the remaining 6 acres of land in Sy.No.72. The suit was, in effect, dismissed insofar as the 4 acres claimed under the Will were concerned. Since a specific point has now been formulated in RFA No.575/2010 with regard to the correctness of the findings recorded on the proof of the Will, this Court is of the considered view that the substantial questions of law Nos.(i), (iii) and (v) framed in RSA No.714/2019 are answered in the "Affirmative" and questions of law Nos.(ii), (iv) and (vi) framed in RSA No.714/2019 are answered in the "Negative" and against the defendants in O.S.No.131/2007. 18. The Trial Court, having meticulously adverted to the oral and documentary evidence, was justified in recording a finding that the suit property bearing Sy.No.72 measuring 10 acres was the absolute and self-acquired property of late N.Murugeshan and that, in the absence of - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 any proved testamentary disposition, the legal heirs would succeed to the estate by intestate succession. In that view of the matter and in order to do substantial justice between the parties, the Trial Court moulded the relief and granted 1/4th share each to the plaintiffs. 19. However, the core and determinative issue that now survives for consideration is whether the plaintiffs would be entitled to claim 1/4th share in the 6 acres of land by excluding 4 acres allegedly covered under the testamentary disposition and further, whether the sale deeds dated 21.02.2000 and 07.07.2000 executed by defendant No.1 – M.Vishwanatha in favour of Smt.G.Shankaramma, to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas, as well as the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.3 in O.S.No.131/2007, are sustainable in law. 20. Since these issues are directly linked to the validity and proof of the Will dated 15.12.1997, which forms the subject matter of consideration in the connected - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 appeal, this Court refrains from expressing any conclusive opinion at this stage. Consequently, this Court now proceeds to record its findings on the points formulated in RFA No.575/2010. Findings on Point No.(i) in RFA No.575/2010 21. The suit in O.S.No.2/2007 emanates from probate proceedings initiated in P & SC No.6/2006. The deceased legatee, Smt.G.Shankaramma, had filed a petition under Section 272 of the "Act, 1925", seeking grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 15.12.1997. In proof of the Will, the legatee examined herself as P.W.1 and examined one of the attesting witnesses, namely Hanumagowdappa, as P.W.3. However, P.W.3, after tendering his chief-examination, did not present himself for cross-examination. This peculiar circumstance appears to have compelled the legatee to subsequently examine P.W.4, who claimed to be the son of the attesting witness P.W.3. On a meticulous scrutiny of the evidence so - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 adduced, this Court notices serious and fundamental procedural infractions going to the root of the proof of the Will. 22. A closer examination of the entire order sheet reveals that P.W.3 – Hanumagowdappa was examined on 15.04.2008, but did not offer himself for cross- examination. The subsequent order sheet dated 15.06.2008 indicates that Hanumagowdappa was present and had signed the order sheet. However, without any explanation placed on record, and without any intervening order of the Court, the legatee, in December 2008, chose to examine P.W.4, claiming him to be the son of the said attesting witness. The order sheet does not disclose that the legatee sought or obtained leave of the Probate Court to examine the son of the attesting witness in substitution of P.W.3. Significantly, even in the chief-examination of P.W.4, there is no disclosure of the date of death of Hanumagowdappa, nor any assertion that he had died prior to offering himself for cross-examination. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 23. In this background, the proof of the Will in the present case warrants strict scrutiny on two distinct and decisive grounds. Firstly, there is a clear non-compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. One of the attesting witnesses to the Will was admittedly alive, entered the witness box, and tendered his chief-examination, but failed to submit himself for cross-examination. If it was the specific case of the legatee that the attesting witness died before cross- examination could be completed, it was incumbent upon her to place on record the death certificate of the said witness and to seek appropriate leave of the Court to lead secondary evidence by examining his legal heir. Neither course was adopted. The order sheet is conspicuously silent as to when the attesting witness died, and even the chief-examination of P.W.4 is devoid of any particulars in this regard. 24. Therefore, there is a patent infraction of the statutory mandate under Section 68 of the Indian - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 Evidence Act, 1872 which unequivocally requires that at least one attesting witness must be examined and subjected to cross-examination to prove the execution and attestation of a Will. In the absence of such compliance, no testamentary disposition can be held to be proved in the eye of law. 25. If the evidence of P.W.4 is excluded from consideration, the further contention advanced by the legatee that since one of the daughters and defendant No.1 M.Vishwanatha were signatories to the Will, the execution of the Will ought to be presumed also cannot be accepted. Once the mandatory requirement of examining an attesting witness in strict compliance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not satisfied, the evidence of persons who are not attesting witnesses is wholly inconsequential for proving the Will. 26. Upon an independent re-appreciation of the material on record, this Court is constrained to hold that - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 the legatee – Smt.G.Shankaramma has failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged Will. Even the documents relied upon by the legatee herself, marked as Exs.P.3 and P.4, disclose that M.Vishwanatha sold an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas under two registered sale deeds dated 21.02.2000 and 07.07.2000. The recitals in these sale deeds clearly indicate that the alienations were effected from 4 acres of land jointly retained by N.Murugeshan and defendant No.1. 27. Though learned counsel appearing for the legatee sought to contend that these sales pertained to land allegedly allotted to the daughters under a family partition, the said contention stands belied by the explicit recitals contained in the sale deeds themselves. Further, in view of the findings recorded in the connected suit O.S.No.131/2007, the recitals in Exs.P.3 and P.4 strike at the very foundation of the testamentary arrangement set up by the legatee. On this ground also, serious doubt - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 arises with regard to the genuineness and enforceability of the alleged Will. 28. This Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction, finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned conclusions recorded by the Probate Court. The Probate Court, on a meticulous appreciation of the evidence, has rightly held that the Will was not proved in accordance with law and that the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will were not satisfactorily explained or removed by the legatee. The findings recorded are based on the absence of cogent, convincing, and legally admissible evidence. Accordingly, Point No.(i) in RFA No.575/2010 is answered in the "Negative". Findings on Point No.(ii) in RFA No.575/2010 29. It is a settled and trite position of law that once a Will is subjected to adjudication before a competent Probate Court and the validity of the Will is either affirmed or negatived, such a judgment operates in rem. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 A judgment rendered by a Probate Court does not merely bind the parties to the probate proceedings, but binds the whole world. Consequently, any finding rendered by a Probate Court with regard to the proof or otherwise of a Will would prevail over all parallel or subsequent proceedings wherein the very same Will is sought to be relied upon or proved. 30. It is, therefore, most unfortunate that the legatee – Smt.G.Shankaramma, though arrayed as defendant No.5 in O.S.No.131/2007, failed to bring to the notice of the Trial Court the fact that she had already suffered an adverse adjudication before the Probate Court in O.S.No.2/2007, wherein the Will dated 15.12.1997 was categorically held to be not proved by judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009. As on the date of dismissal of the probate proceedings in the year 2009, the declaratory suit filed by the daughters of late N.Murugeshan in O.S.No.131/2007 was admittedly pending consideration. However, O.S.No.131/2007 came to be disposed of only - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 on 08.04.2011, long after the Probate Court had rendered its judgment negativing the Will. 31. In this background, the finding recorded by the Trial Court on Additional Issue No.2 in O.S.No.131/2007, holding that the Will stood proved, runs directly contrary to and in clear conflict with the binding judgment rendered by the Probate Court. Such a finding, rendered in ignorance of a prior judgment in rem, is manifestly perverse, unsustainable in law, and cannot be permitted to stand. Accordingly, the finding recorded on Additional Issue No.2 in O.S.No.131/2007 is liable to be quashed and is hereby set aside. Accordingly, Point No.(ii) is answered in the "Affirmative". Findings on Additional substantial question of law framed in RSA No.714/2019 32. Defendant No.4 has preferred the present appeal claiming rights as a subsequent purchaser. It is not in dispute that Smt.G.Shankaramma had earlier acquired - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 rights under two registered sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 – M.Vishwanatha, dated 21.02.2000 and 07.07.2000, conveying in her favour a total extent of 2 acres 20 guntas. These conveyances are prior in point of time and stand duly proved on record. 33. However, the Trial Court, while drawing the preliminary decree, failed to advert to the effect of these two earlier alienations and instead proceeded to protect the interest of defendant No.4, who claims under a registered sale deed executed in the year 2006 by the very same vendor, namely defendant No.1. Such an approach is legally unsustainable. If the preliminary decree allots 1/4th share to defendant No.1 in the total extent of 10 acres, his share would work out precisely to 2 acres 20 guntas. Therefore, the alienations made by defendant No.1 in favour of Smt.G.Shankaramma in the year 2000 fully exhaust his legitimate share. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 34. In that view of the matter, any subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in the year 2006 in favour of defendant No.4, in excess of his available and subsisting share, cannot convey valid right, title, or interest. The principle governing priority of transfers squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The earlier transferee, namely Smt.G.Shankaramma, having acquired right and title under two registered conveyances long prior in point of time, is entitled to have her title protected in preference to a subsequent transferee. 35. The principle embodied under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which incorporates the doctrine of priority, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Where a person purports to create, by transfer, successive rights in or over the same immovable property, and such rights cannot co-exist, the later transfer is subject to the rights created by the earlier transfer, unless a special contract to the contrary is established. In the present case, defendant No.1 – - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 M.Vishwanatha had already alienated an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in favour of Smt.G.Shankaramma under two registered sale deeds dated 21.02.2000 and 07.07.2000. These alienations, being prior in point of time, operated to exhaust the vendor’s transferable interest to that extent. Consequently, the subsequent sale deed executed in the year 2006 in favour of defendant No.4, insofar as it purports to convey rights in excess of the remaining share of the vendor, is subordinate to and eclipsed by the earlier transfers. The rights flowing from the prior sale deeds in favour of Smt.G.Shankaramma, therefore, deserve protection, and the subsequent transferee cannot claim any superior or independent title in derogation of the earlier conveyances. 36. Consequently, the sale deed obtained by defendant No.4 in the year 2006 does not confer any enforceable title to the extent it travels beyond the share available to the vendor. The rights flowing from the prior sale deeds dated 21.02.2000 and 07.07.2000 executed in - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 favour of Smt.G.Shankaramma stand protected. Accordingly, in the event the legal heirs of Smt.G.Shankaramma initiate Final Decree Proceedings, they are entitled to seek allotment and possession of 2 acres 20 guntas in accordance with law and in terms of the decree passed by this Court in RSA No.714/2019. Accordingly, this point is answered in the "Affirmative". 37. In view of the dismissal of RFA No.575/2010, the inevitable consequence is that the finding recorded by the Trial Court in O.S.No.131/2007 on Additional Issue No.2 cannot survive. However, it is made explicitly clear that Smt.G.Shankaramma had independently acquired title to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas under two registered sale deeds dated 21.02.2000 and 07.07.2000, evidenced at Exs.P.3 and P.4, executed by M.Vishwanatha. The said alienations, being prior in point of time and supported by registered conveyances, are required to be protected. - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 38. Accordingly, the extent of 2 acres 20 guntas conveyed under Exs.P.3 and P.4 shall be adjusted and allotted to the share of defendant No.1 – M.Vishwanatha, and the said extent shall enure to the benefit of Smt.G.Shankaramma, who acquired title in respect of an undivided share by virtue of the said registered sale deeds. 39. In view of the findings recorded by this Court in RFA No.575/2010 as well as in RSA No.714/2019, though the learned counsel appearing for the parties have brought to the notice of this Court that a Final Decree has already been drawn pursuant to the preliminary decree in O.S.No.131/2007 in F.D.P.No.7/2015, this Court is of the considered view that the said Final Decree has no sanctity or legal efficacy in the eye of law, as it is founded on a preliminary decree which stood vitiated to the extent indicated above. - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 40. However, having regard to the protection accorded to the alienations in favour of Smt.G.Shankaramma to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas, liberty is reserved to the legal heirs of Smt.G.Shankaramma to initiate appropriate Final Decree Proceedings, in accordance with law, seeking allotment and possession of the said extent by working out equities consistent with the findings recorded in RFA No.575/2010 and RSA No.714/2019. 41. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants have no application to the present case on hand. 42. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) RFA No.575/2010 is dismissed. (ii) RSA No.714/2019 is partly allowed. (iii) The rights of G.Shankaramma under two registered sale deeds - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6036 RFA No. 575 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 714 of 2019 dated 07.07.2000 and 21.02.2000 are hereby held to be valid and are protected to be worked out by independent final decree proceedings. (iv) Draw decree accordingly. (v) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24