- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 320 OF 2008 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: V SHIVARAJ AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE VELYUDHAN, R/AT NO.195, VII CROSS, PILLANA GARDEN, SAGAYAPURAM, BANGALORE 84. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT R S LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O B RAJASHEKHARAN, 2. 2(a) S DHARMALINGAM SINCE DECESED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SMT KANTHA W/O S.DHARMALINGAM AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2(b) SMT SHASHIKALA D/O S. DHARMALINGAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 2(c) SMT CHITRA D/O S. DHARMALINGAM AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2(d) SMT PRIYANKA D/O S.DHARMALINGUM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, APPELLANTS Nos.1 AND 2(a) TO 2(d) ARE R/AT NO.9, NEW NO.17, SOMASUNDARAM, 5TH STREET, AYNAVARAM, CHENNAI- 600 023 ALSO AT:CHENGOI PANAMBAKKAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLORE TALUK, ARAKONAM DISTRICT TAMILNADU 3. SMT MARIAMMAL W/O V GOPAL D/O R. SUBRAMANIAM AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 4. SMT USHA RANI W/O P KANNA D/O R. SUBRAMANIAM AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 5. SMT RENUKADEVI SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HER LRS 5(a) M. GOVINDARAJ MUNISWAMY REDDY S/O MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 5(b) MANJULA BOOPATHI D/O GOVINDARAJ M REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5(c) KOKILA GOVINDARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 D/O GOVINDARAJ M REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 5(a) TO 5(c) ARE R/AT BAIKARI MADAM STREET SHOLINGUR VELLORE TAMILNADU – 631102 6. SRI R S KUMAR S/O R.SUBRAMANIAM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESPONDENT Nos.3, 4, 5(a) to (c), 6 ARE R/AT SOMASUNDARAM, 5TH STREET AYNAVARAM MADRAS – 600023 7. A RAMAKRISHNA @ A R KRISHNA MAJOR S/O V.C.ARJUNA PROPRIETOR OF R.K. PRODUCTS, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE 48. 8. P L ARUNACHALAM AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O PALANIYAPPAN, 9. RAJINI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O ADINARAYAN SETTY 10. A S HARIPRASAD AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SRIRAMAIAH 11. N SRINIVAS MAJOR, S/O NARAYANA SETTY - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 12. S K RAMESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O S.KRISHNAN 13. M DHANASEKHARA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O V.M.MUDALIAR 14. MANOHARA SETTY MAJOR 15. K BALAGOPALAN S/O K M MENON AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 16. S P VALLIYAPPAN S/O P L SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 17. P SEETHALAKSHMI W/O RAMANATHAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 18. MUTHULAKSHMI J W/O PARAMESHWARAN 19. S R MUTHU S/O RAMANATHAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 20. JACOB S/O ONNONNOMMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 21. S R ROYANH S/O P S RAYANPILLAI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 22. A MARY S/O SOWRI ROYAN PILLAIAH - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 23. A JOSEPH S/O V J ANTHONY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 24. A C MONICA S/O V J ANTHONY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 25. L LAWRENCE PULLIKKOTHIL S/O P K LONAPPAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 26. GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O RAMAN NAYAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 27. PANDURANGAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 21 ARE TENANTS OCCUPYING DIFFERENT PORTIONS IN THE PROPERITES BEARING NO.15 AND 10/83, KANDASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE – 560084 28. 29. C JAGADEESHAN S/O. LATE CHINNABABU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.614, 5TH MAIN 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560010 STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 BENGALURU -560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.M.NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K S MALLIKARJUN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2(a TO d), R3, R4, R5 (a TO c) & R6 V/O DATED 20.11.2009, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R7, R12, R14, R15, R17, R18, R27 & R28 ARE SUFFICIENT R8, R9, R10, R11, R13, R16, R19, R20, R21, R22, R23, R24, R25, R26 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED SRI, R A MACHAKANUR, AGA FOR R29) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2483/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by defendant No.23, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.2483/1993 on the file of XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’ for short) by which the said suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed as under: “The suit of plaintiffs is decreed. It is ordered and decreed that plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Sri R. Parashuram and they had succeeded - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 to the estate (suit schedule properties) late Sri R.Parashuram and they are entitled to recover possession of suit schedule properties from defendants No.2 to 21 tenants in due course of law and they are also entitled to recover rents of suit schedule properties from defendants No. 2 to 21 tenants from the date of suit, till they deliver the possession of suit schedule properties to them (plaintiffs). Defendants No.1 and 22 are hereby permanently restrained from interfering or meddling with the suit schedule properties in any manner. It is further ordered and decreed that plaintiffs are entitled to all the movables, including cash amount of Rs. 48,918/- which were recovered from the residence of late Sri R.Parashuram, and which were kept under the safe custody of PSI, Frazer Town Police Station. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I order both the parties to bear their own costs. Draw decree accordingly.” 2. The case of the plaintiffs is; (a) the plaintiffs 1 to 6 are the brothers and sisters being children of one R. Subramaniam, who was working as a carpenter in Perambur Carriage work of Southern Railway, Madras. The plaintiffs paternal grandfather one Rangaswamy had two sons namely R.Subramaniam, the father of the plaintiffs and one R.Parashuram. R. Parashuram died unmarried on 01.04.1992. The father of the plaintiffs R. Subramaniam passed away on 04.12.1976. The plaintiffs’ mother Smt.Panchalai died on 05.07.1985. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 (b) that R. Parashuram their paternal uncle was working in ITC, Bangalore as a Dye cutter and was residing in Bangalore. He remained bachelor till his death on 01.4.1992. During his life time, their uncle had acquired and owned suit schedule property bearing No.10/83 and 15 situated in Kandaswamy Mudaliar Road, Tannery Road cross, Frazer town, Bangalore-05, which was let out to defendant Nos.2 to 21 who occupied different portion of the said property as tenants thereon on payment of monthly rents. The said R. Parashuram passed away intestate and the plaintiffs who are his nephews and nieces have succeeded to his estate as his heirs coming under class-II (IV)(1)(b) of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. That there are no other heirs except the plaintiffs who are entitled to succeed to the estate of late R. Parashuram. (c) After the demise of their uncle, on 15.12.1992, the plaintiffs issued legal notice to the tenants defendant Nos.2 to 21 through their advocate K. Bhupati of Madras informing them that the plaintiffs have succeeded to the estate of R. Parashuram and called upon them to attorn the tenancy in their favour and to pay the rents of suit schedule properties in future - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 to them. Since there was no response from these defendant Nos.2 to 21, the plaintiffs had approached the said tenants personally. (d) Defendant No.1 who is an utter stranger nothing to do with the family of the plaintiffs or their paternal uncle, claiming to be a friend of R. Parashuram working with him in ITC attempted to interfere and intermeddle with the suit schedule property claiming that said R. Parashuram had executed a Will dated 25/27.03.1992, and that he had created a public trust in respect of the suit schedule property in terms of the said Will. It was further contended that defendant No.1 had been appointed as an Executor under the said Will and the chief trustee of Parashuram Charities. The plaintiffs on learning about the said attempts by the defendant No.1, made thorough search in the office of Sub-Registrar and found that their uncle had not executed any such Will or created any Public Trust as claimed by defendant No.1. (e) Defendant No.22 who was assisting and helping the deceased uncle of the plaintiffs namely R.Parashuram during his life time, also started to claim and assert his right over the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 suit property being the sole legatee under an alleged Will purported to have been executed by R.Parashuram. The claim of defendant No.22 is also false and untrue as Parashuram died intestate without leaving behind any Will. That in order to prevent defendant No.1 and defendant No.22 from interfering or meddling in any manner with the suit property or exercising any right over the estate of R. Parashuram pursuant to the said alleged Will, they have been impleaded in the suit and a relief of injunction is sought against them. (f) Contending as above, the plaintiffs sought for the following reliefs: "(a) declaring that the plaintiffs are heirs coming under Class-II (4) (B) (3) read with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and are entitled to succeed to the estate of their paternal uncle late R. Parasuram who died on 1.4.1992 intestate; (b) That the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the suit properties from the defendants. (c) That they are entitled to recover the rents from the defendants 2 to 21 in respect of portions of the suit properties in their respective possession as tenants subsequent to 1.4.1992 and onwards. (d) To restrain first and second defendants permanently in any manner Interfering or meddling with the suit properties by issuing permanent injunction against them. (e) To award costs and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case." - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 3. Originally, the defendant No.8 who was a tenant had filed the written statement denying the plaint averments. It appears defendant No.23 sought to implead himself in the suit as a necessary party claiming to be the sole surviving heir of deceased R.Parashuram as well as his legatee under a Will by filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC (I.A.No.8) on 13.01.1994. Objection to the said application was filed. By order dated 03.08.1994, the said application filed by defendant No.23 came to be dismissed as against which Civil Revision Petition in CRP No.4093/1994 was filed. By order dated 22.02.2000, the said application came to be allowed by this Court. It is thus under these circumstances, defendant No.23 was brought on record. 4. Defendant No.23 filed his written statement contending; (a) That one Rangaswamy also called as Murugan alias Rangaswamy was the permanent resident of Periyarnagar, Bangalore, which is now called as Devarajeevanahalli, had two sons namely Velayudhan, the father of defendant No.23 and Parashuram who was the owner of the suit schedule property. The said Murugan alias Rangaswamy was working as a - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 carpenter and his first son Velayudhan followed the suit and he also become carpenter assisting his father without primary education. Parashuram was admitted to Municipal Higher Elementary school, C & M station, Bangalore and he studied up to 8th standard. Velayudhan father of defendant No.23 was appointed as a carpenter in ITC in the year 1940 and in 1941, Parashuram was also employed by ITC, Bangalore as a Dye cutter. Murugan alias Rangaswamy, his wife and his two sons were living in their house at Devarajeevanahalli till 1942. When Murugan alias Rangaswamy died, Velayudhan got married in 1945 and defendant No.23 was born on 1947. Parashuram the brother of Velayudhan started to live separately in the vicinity. (b) Parashuram the paternal uncle of defendant No.23 acquired the suit property in year 1949-50 and constructed a residential house thereon in the year 1952 and was residing therein along with his mother while Velayudhan the father of defendant No.23 continued to live in Devarajeevanahalli with his family till he died in 1968. Parashuram remained a bachelor. He also acquired adjoining piece of land in 1955 and put up construction and let out the portions to defendant Nos.1 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 to 21 and he was residing in one of the portion of the suit schedule property. (c) Parashuram wanted defendant No.23 to put up a residence close to his residence to assist him and his mother. Parashuram treated defendant No.23 with love and affection and defendant No.23 was looking after him serving him physically and managing all his affairs. Prior to his demise on 01.04.1992, Parashuram was continuously bed ridden for more than 2 years. The defendant No.23 was looking after and providing all medical care and attention. (d) The plaintiffs never heard nor visited deceased Parashuram at any time during his life time. Parashuram died on 01.04.1992. Defendant No.23 performed cremation on 02.04.1992 and he performed obsequies ceremony on 15.04.1992. The plaintiffs are all strangers. They are neither related nor having any nexus with the family of deceased Parashuram. They are admittedly permanent residents of Madras. The suit is filed to make wrongful gain and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 (e) That defendant No.23 is the only legal heir of R.Parashuram entitled to succeed under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. That apart, deceased R. Parashuram had also executed a Will dated 25.03.1992 which defendant No.23 came to know only on 15.3.1993, when the attesting witness to the said Will handed over the same to him, the defendant by way of abundant caution, also got the said Will to be registered before the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar on 30.06.1993. Thus, he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Contending as above, he also sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are class-Il heirs of late Sri R.Parashuram under Sec.4(b)(c) read with Sec.8 of the Hindu Succession Act? 2) Whether the plaintiffs proves that they are entitled for recovery of rents in respect of the suit schedule property as owners? 3) Whether defendant No.23 proves that late Parashuram bequeathed the suit schedule property under the Will, dated 25.3.1992 and registered on 30.6.1993 in his favour? - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 4) Does defendant No.23 proves the execution of the Will? 5) To what reliefs are the parties entitled to? 6) To what order or decree? Amended issue No.3: 3) Whether defendant No.23 proves that late Parashuram bequeathed the suit schedule property under the Will, dated 25.3.1992 and registered on 30.6.1993 in his favour? Addl.Issues: 1) Whether defendant No.23 proves that he is the legal heir (nephew) of late Sri R.Parashuram? 2) Whether the valuation of the suit made by plaintiffs for the purpose of payment of Court fee is proper and the Court fee paid by plaintiffs is proper and sufficient? 6. On behalf of the plaintiffs, 3 witnesses have been examined as PW.1 to 3 and 35 documents are marked as Ex.P1 to P35. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of defendants as DW1 and DW2 and 15 documents have been marked as Ex.D1 to D15. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has answered issue Nos.1, 2 and additional issue No.2 in the affirmative, issue No.3, 4 and additional issue No.1 in the negative and consequently decreed the suit as noted above. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant No.23 is before this Court in this appeal. 8. Sri. Sadashiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the appellant taking this Court through the records submits; (a) that the plaintiffs have failed to produce any acceptable evidence to establish the relationship with the deceased R. Parashuram. PW1 in her evidence has admitted the document produced by her was overwritten indicating insertion of name of her grandfather in the record. The other two witnesses who have been examined cannot be relied upon. (b) Defendant No.23 on the other hand who has propounded the Will has proved the Will by examining DW2, who is the attesting witness, thereby complying with the requirement of law regarding proof of Will. That once the Will is proved, the trial Court ought not to have proceeded to decree the suit as sought for by the plaintiffs. (c) That Parashuram and defendant No.23 belong to Scheduled Caste Community while the plaintiffs belong to Modaliar Community. As such the plaintiffs cannot claim to be - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 the legal representatives/heirs of Parashuram. That defendant has produced a caste certificate issued by the competent authority as per Ex.D15. (d) The documents in the nature of school certificates, death ceremony card issued by the concerned authorities indicate that the final rites of deceased Parashuram was conducted by defendant No.23, since parties belong to two different and distinct communities, which the defendant No.23 has established by producing the documentary evidence, the trial Court ought not to have accepted the case of plaintiffs being the legal representatives who belong to Modaliar community. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. C.M. Nagabhushan, appearing for plaintiffs taking this Court through the evidence of PW3, one Papathiammal, as well as PW2, who was the sister of mother of the plaintiffs, submits: (a) that PW3 is an independent witness, who was aged 83 years at the time of her examination and who has withstood the test of cross-examination deposing absolute truth. That said witness belonged to Schedule Caste Community to which - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 the defendant No.23 also claims to be the member of. The said witness has also identified and deposed about she knowing the deceased Parashuram and his brother Subramani, both being children of one Kunthiyammal and plaintiffs being the children of Subramani. (b) He refers to the suggestions made to the said witness to contend that the very tone and tenor of the suggestion would indicate that defendant No.23 was himself aware of the truth being told by the said witness. (c) Similar is the submission with regard to the deposition of PW2, who has spoken about she having attended the marriage of Subramani, the father of the plaintiffs. That she has also spoken about she having visited Bangalore and having seen Parashuram and mother of Parashuram and Subramani. (d) He submits that these two witnesses had spoken the truth without any discrepancy or any ambiguity. The said deposition is natural and there is no reason not to believe the version of the said witnesses. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 (e) He refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dolgobinda Paricha Vs Nimai Charan Misra and others reported in AIR 1959 Supreme Court 914 to contend that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 would meet the requirement of Section 50 of the Evidence Act to establish the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased Parashuram. (f) As regards the Will, it is contended the said will had not seen the light of the day for more than a year from the date of death of Parashuram. Admittedly, the alleged Will has been registered after the demise of Parashuram on 30.06.1993. The witness who has been examined is not aware of his own whereabouts clearly indicating the said witness is planted. (g) that similar Wills were set up by defendant No.1 and defendant No.22 who had given up their claim midway. However, defendant No.23 who got himself impleaded subsequently has carried the matter till now. (h) that very premise on which defendant No.23 is making his claim is that he belongs to Schedule Caste Community and Parashuram also belongs to Schedule Caste community that he had produced the caste certificate Exhibit - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 D15, which was obtained after the retirement of deceased Parashuram from service and there was no occasion of any nature whatsoever to have obtained such caste certificate and that the very issuance of caste certificate itself is surrounded by suspicion. (i) that in the light of deposition of PW3- Papathiammal, who herself belonged to the Schedule caste community and she being otherwise closely related to defendant No.23, having lived with one Jagannath, who is none other than the uncle of defendant No.23 has proved the fact that defendant No.23 belonging to different caste than that of deceased Parashuram and the plaintiffs. (j) that the plaintiffs have proved the case beyond any doubt with regard to they being the legal representatives of Parashuram entitled for the share in his estate. Hence, he submits that the trial Court has not committed error in decreeing the suit as sought for. Contending as above, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Heard and perused the records. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 11. Points that arise for consideration are: “1. Whether plaintiffs have proved that they are the legal representatives of deceased Parashuram, being entitled to inherit suit schedule property left behind by Parashuram? 2. Whether defendant No.23 proved that he is the sole heir and legatee of deceased Parashuram? 3. Whether trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit as prayed for?” 12. There is no dispute of the fact that suit schedule property belonged to deceased Parashuram and Parashuram died as a bachelor. Claim of the plaintiffs is that they are his nephews and nieces being children of Subramani, the elder brother of Parashuram. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Subramanian and Parashuram were the two sons of one Rangaswamy, the permanent residents of Bengaluru. 13. In order to prove that they are the legal representatives of Parashuram, plaintiff No.1 apart from examining herself as PW1, has also examined Sulochana -PW2 who is her maternal aunt. Sulochana-PW2 has filed her affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The said witness is aged 70 years at the time of recording her evidence. The address of the said witness - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 is as under: Sulochana wife of late Sri.Krishna Murthy residing at No.17, Srinivasan Street, Aynavaram, Chennai 23. She has stated that her elder sister, late Panchalai was married to R.Subramanian. R. Subramanian was working in Southern Railway, Perambur. The said R.Subramanian passed away about 30 years ago. Said R. Subramanian had one younger brother by name R.Parasuram, who was working in ITC, Bengaluru. R.Parasuram owned a house in Bengaluru. He was unmarried, living with his mother in a portion of the property and had rented out rest of the property to tenants. That she had visited and stayed in the house of Parasuram when she had visited Bangalore about 30 years ago. When she came to Bangalore about 30 years ago, that she has seen the parents of R.Subramanian and R.Parasuram. Their names are Rangaswamy and Smt.Kunthiammal alias Kullamma. Kunthiammal was residing with R.Parasuram till she died few years prior to death of R.Parasuram. She has identified a photograph depicting picture of Kullamma as per Exhibit P33. That Subramanian and Parasuram were the only two children of Rangaswamy and there was no other son by name Velayudhan. That she had attended the marriage of all the children of her - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 sister Panchalai including marriage of one Usharani plaintiff No.4 with one R. Kannan that had taken place on 02.09.1973, the marriage invitation card of said Usharani carried the name of said R.Parasuram. The said marriage invitation card is marked as Exhibit P34. The translation of said document is marked as Ex.34(A). 14. The said witness has been subjected to cross examination. Perusal of which would indicate that she has withstood the test of cross examination and nothing has been elicited to discredit her version. Suggestions made to the said witness referring to photograph at Exhibit P33 during the cross examination reads as under: “It is false to suggest that I have not seen the mother of Parasuram. She had come and attended the marriage of Smt.Usha Rani. I have seen her, the mother of Sri.Parasuram about thirty to forty years back. Thereafter, I have not seen her. It is not true to suggest that I have not seen her. Sri.Kunthiamma or neither she had come to Chennai nor I have come to Bengaluru to see her. It is not true to suggest that Exhibit No.33 is not the photo of Smt.Kanthiammal. ….." 15. As pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, the tenor of the said suggestions indicate that defendant No.23 either knew who the original Kunthiammal - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 was or he was denying the one found in paragraph 23. In any case defendant No.23 has not produced any evidence to disprove Kunthiammal found in Ex.P33. 16. PW3-Papathiammal, who has filed her affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, has described herself to be wife of late Jagannathan. Her age is shown as 83 years residing at G7, Giddapa block, Eroji lane, 18th cross, Sagayapuram, Frazer Town, Bengaluru. She has spoken about she being aware of plaintiffs being the children of R. Subramanian, who is the elder brother of R. Parasuram and said R. Subramanian and R. Parasuram in turn being sons of one Rangaswamy and Smt.Kunthiammal alias Kullamma. The said witness has affirmed that she was knowing about R.Subramanian and R.Purusuram from their very young age as they were living with their mother Smt.Kullamma in the same vataram (compound) in Vivian Road Civil Station, Bangalore, where the said witness was also residing with her family members. She has also spoken about Subramanian securing the job in the Southern Railways at Perambur, and his younger brother securing the job at a cigarette factory in Bengaluru, staying - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 with his mother, Kullamma. She has also spoken about said Parasuram shifting his residence from Vivian Road to Kandaswamy Mudaliar Road to his own house about 50 years ago after purchasing of the same. She has also spoken about she visiting the house of R.Parasuram and meeting him often till his demise about 15 years ago. She has also spoken about she being aware of V.Shivaraj -defendant No.23 and he not being related to R.Parasuram. She has spoken about Parasuram belonging to Modaliar community whereas V.Shivaraj defendant No.23 belongs to Schedule Caste community to which she also belonged. She has claimed defendant No.23- V.Shivaraj being related to her. She has further stated that there were no close relatives of Parasuram at the time of his death. The possession of the house and the articles found in the house were taken over by the Frazer Town police station into their custody and the same was locked and sealed. 17. In the cross-examination, the said witness has admitted that she had not attended the cremation of Parasuram. She had spoken about she having seen Subramanian about 30 - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 years ago in Bangalore. She has also spoken about having seen wife of Subramanian only once and her name being Panchalai. She has also spoken about they having six children, and she has named four of them, namely (1)Dharmalingam, (2) Kumar, (3) Mariamma, (4) Lakshmi and pleaded ignorance about other two. She has spoken about Lakshmi being familiar to her. She also spoken about she belonging to Schedule Caste Community and that since she was of a fair complexion, she was called as Pappathiammal (Brahmin Lady). Following deposition of her is worth extract: "I belong to Scheduled Caste. As I was fair complexioned I was called Pappathiammal (Brahmin lady). I do not know my first husband's name. He was in Bengaluru. I know Sri Jagannath and his wife Smt. Pappammal. I don't know how many children he has. Sri Jagannath was not my husband but we were in love. I was working as housemaid earlier now I am doing the business vegetable vending. I do not have own house and I am living in a rented house. I am paying a rent of Rs.670/- per month. I do not have anybody to help me except God. I am running my vegetable vending on footpath. It is false to suggest that Smt.Laxmi asked me to give evidence in her favour, promising me to give a house. It is false to suggest that I do not know Sri Rangaswamy and Smt.Kanthiammal. It is false to suggest that I do not know Sri.Parasuram and Sri.Subramani. It is false to suggest that I have not seen Sri Rangaswamy and Smt.Kunthiammal. The said witness further re-examined and cross examined which is as under: I have lived with my first husband for only one month. I have lived with Sri Jagannath for seven to eight years. I had one - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 son by him by name Mani who is no more now. Mr. Jagannath is the uncle of Shivaraj. Sri.Shivaraj is son of Sri.Velayudhan. Sri.Jagannath and Velayudhan are brothers. Sri.Shivaraj is present and I have identified him who is sitting by the side of his advocate. I have heard that the tenants themselves have cremated the body of Sri.Parasuram. In her further cross examination she has deposed as under: I have heard Sri.Shivraj was MLA but I do not know personally. I have not seen his house or his father's house. I have not seen his wife or his mother. It is false to suggest that Shivaraj and Jagannath are not related. It is false to suggest that I did not had a son by Mr.Jagannath. I am aged more than 80 years. After the deserted by first husband, I am living alone. I have no any other relation. I had no means of life except working as servant maid and non-vegetable vending. It is not true to suggest that Sri.Parashuram belongs to S.Caste." 18. Holistic reading of the evidence, deposition of said witness who is aged 83 years indicate dispassionate disclosure of the facts. As rightly emphasized by learned counsel for the plaintiffs the veracity of the witness cannot be doubted who at this age has spoken and stood the ground of her conviction. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Dolgobinda Paricha supra, while dealing with the scope and nuances of Section 50 of the Evidence Act at paragraph 7, 8, 9 to 12 has held as under: "7. It is necessary to state here that how the conduct or external behaviour which expresses the opinion of a person coming within the meaning of s. 50 is to be proved is not stated in the section. The section merely says that such opinion is a relevant fact on the subject of relationship of one person to - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 another in a case where the court has to form an opinion as to that relationship. Part 11 of the Evidence Act is headed " On Proof ". Chapter III thereof contains a fascicule of sections relating to facts which need not be proved. Then there is Chapter IV dealing with oral evidence and in it occurs s. 60 which says inter alia :- " S. 60. Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say- if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense in that manner; if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds. " If we remember that the offered item of evidence under s. 50 is conduct in the sense explained above, then there is no difficulty in holding that such conduct or outward behaviour must be proved in the manner laid down in s. 60; if the conduct relates to something which can be seen, it must be proved by the person who saw it; if it is something which can be heard, then it must be proved by the person who heard it; and so on. The conduct must be of the person who fulfils the essential conditions of s. 50, and it must be proved in the manner laid down in the provisions relating to proof. It appears to us that that portion of s. 60 which provides that the person who holds an opinion must be called to prove his Opinion does not necessarily delimit the scope of S. 50 in the sense that opinion expressed by conduct must be proved only by the person whose conduct expresses the opinion. Conduct, as an external perceptible fact, may be proved either by the testimony of the person himself whose opinion is evidence under s. 50 or by some other person acquainted with the facts which express such opinion, and as the testimony must relate to external facts which constitute conduct and is given by persons personally acquainted with such facts, the testimony is in each case direct within the meaning of s. 60. This, in our opinion, is the true inter-relation between s. 50 and s. 60 of the Evidence Act. In Queen Empress v. Subbarayan (1) Hutchins, J., said :- " That proof of the opinion, as expressed by conduct, may be given, seems to imply that the person himself is not to be called to state his own opinion, but that, when he is dead or cannot be called, his conduct may - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 be proved by others. The section appears to us to afford an exceptional way of proving a relationship, but by no means to prevent any person from stating a fact of which he or she has special means of knowledge." While we agree that s. 50 affords an exceptional way of proving a relationship and by no means prevents any person from stating a fact of which he or she has special. means of knowledge, we do not agree with Hutchins, J., when he says that the section seems to imply that the person whose opinion is a relevant fact cannot be called to state his own opinion as expressed by his conduct and that his conduct may be proved by others only when he is dead or cannot be called. We do not think that s. 50 puts any such limitation. 8. Let us now apply the tests indicated above to the testimony of the two witnesses, Janardan Misra and Dharanidhar Misra. As to Sushila Misrain, she was aged about 43 when she gave evidence in 1946. It is unnecessary to consider in detail her evidence, because if the evidence of the other two older witnesses be admissible, that would be sufficient to support the finding arrived at by the courts below another evidence would also be admissible on the same criteria as the evidence of the other two witnesses. 9. The first question which we must consider is if Janardan Misra and Dharanidhar Misra had special means of knowing the disputed relationship. Janardan Misra was aged about 62 in 1946, and he was related to the family of Baidyanath Misra. Kashi Nath Misra was his grand-father and was a brother of Baidyanath Misra. Obviously, therefore, Janardan Misra had special means of knowing the disputed relationship, being related to Baidyanath and therefore to Haripriya, who was the second wife of Lokenath. He said in his evidence that he knew Lokenath Parichha, had seen his first wife Satyabhama and remembered the marriage of Haripriya with Lokenath Parichha. Obviously, therefore, he 'fulfilled the condition of special knowledge. He further said that he attended the marriage of Malabati, daughter of Lokenath, when Lokenath was living. That marriage took place in the house of Lokenath. He also said that he was present when the first two daughters of Malabati were married and also at the time of the Upanayan ceremonies of plaintiffs I and 2. According to the witness, Shyam Sundar Pujari, a son of a sister of Lokenath, acted as a maternal uncle at the time of the marriage of the eldest daughter of Malabati and Dayasagar Misra carried Radhika, second daughter of Malabati, at the time of her marriage. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 10. The question is whether these statements of Janardan Misra as to his conduct are admissible under s. 50, Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended before us that even apart from s. 50, the evidence of Janardan Misra is direct evidence of facts which he saw and which should be treated as .directly proving the relationship between Lokenath and his daughters. We do not think that learned counsel for the respondent is right in his submission that Janardan's evidence directly proves the relation between Lokenath and his alleged daughters, Abalya, Brindabati and Malabati. Janardan does not say that he 'was present at the birth of any of these daughters. What be says is that he was present at the marriage of Malabati which took place when Lokenath was living and in Lokenath's house; he was also present at the marriages of the first two daughters of Malabati and also at the time of the Upanayan ceremonies of plaintiffs I and 2. This evidence, in our opinion, properly comes within s. 50, Evidence Act; it shows the opinion of Janardan Misra as expressed by his conduct, namely, his attending the marriage of Malabati as daughter of Lokenath and his attending the marriages and Upanayan ceremonies of the grandchildren of Lokenath. We do not think that it can be suggested for one moment that Janardan Misra attended the marriage and other ceremonies in the family as a mere casual invitee. He must have been invited as a relation of the family and unless he believed that Malabati was a daughter of Lokenath and the others were grand-children of Lokenath to whom the witness was related, he would not have said that he attended those ceremonies as those of the children and grand-children, of Lokenath. This, in our opinion, is a reasonable inference from the evidence and if that is so, then the evidence of Janardan Misra was clearly evidence which showed his belief as expressed by his conduct on the subject of the relationship between Lokenath and his daughters and Lokenath and his grandchildren. 11. Janardan also said that one Shyamsundar Pujari acted as maternal uncle at the time of the marriage of the eldest daughter of Malabati. There is some evidence in the record that Shyamsundar Pujari was son of Lokenath's sister. This was, however, disputed by the appellant. The High Court has not recorded any finding on the relation of Shyamsundar Pujari to Lokenath. If it were proved that Shyamsundar was a son of Lokenath's sister, he would have special means of knowledge as a relation of the family and his conduct at the time of the marriage of Malabati's daughter would also be admissible under s. 50. But in the absence of any finding as to any special means of knowledge on the part of Shyamsundar, the latter's conduct will not be admissible under s. 50. We need not say - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 anything more about Shyamsundar, as the High Court has not based its finding on the conduct of Shyamsundar. 12. The same criteria apply to the evidence of Dharanidhar Misra, who was aged 96 at the time when he gave evidence. He was the maternal uncle of Janardan Misra. Dharanidhar's evidence showed that he knew Lokenath Parichha and his two wives, Satyabhama and Haripriya. He also had special means of knowing the disputed relationship, though he was not directly related to Lokenath. He said that Lokenath was two years older than him and the witness attended the marriages of Radhika and Sarjoo and the " thread " ceremonies of Lakshminarayan and Nimai. The witness further added that though he did not remember if he was invited to the marriage of Mandhata's daughters, he was invited to the feasts which followed the marriage. He said that the feasts took place in the house of Mandhata and he attended the " gansana " and marriage feasts of Mandhata's daughters. The same criteria which make the evidence of Janardan Misra admissible under s. 50 also make the evidence of Dharanidhar Misra admissible under the same section." 20. PW2 and PW3 by their sheer conviction as emanating from the natural deposition have not only deposed about their acquaintance with the plaintiffs, but have also spoken about their participation in the natural course of events in some of the occasions that have taken place in the lives of parents of the plaintiffs as well as that of defendant No.23. While PW2 has spoken about she having attended the marriages and she being aware of the family members of parents and grandparents of the plaintiffs, PW3 has spoken about she having lived with one Jagannath, who is none other than the paternal uncle of defendant No.23. The tenor of suggestions in the cross - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 examination put forth to PW3 also indicate that defendant No.23 has not probed deep into the relationship being described by her. There is nothing to disbelieve the version of PW2 and PW3, who have been examined by the plaintiffs to establish their relationship with deceased Parashuram. Thus the plaintiff have proved that they are the legal representatives of deceased Parasuram being entitled to inherit suit schedule property left behind by Parasuram. Point No.1 raised above is answered accordingly. 21. As regards point No.2, defendant No.23 claims himself to be a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community and he has attempted to prove Parashuram also to be the person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community. He has produced Exhibit D15, a caste certificate which indicates same having been obtained on 17.10.1981. He has produced the caste certificate of Parashuram showing him to be the person belonging to Adi Dravida Schedule caste community. Parasuram admittedly died on 01.04.1992. The trial Court has taken note that from the evidence of DW1 that is defendant No.23, it appears that Parashuram had retired from his service in the - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 year 1981. The trial Court analysing the circumstances of caste certificate-Exhibit D15 coming to existence has found that there was no occasion or reason for deceased Parasuram to obtain such caste certificate from the Tahsildar. The trial Court has also taken note of the fact that defendant No.23 has stated in his evidence, that deceased Parasuram had intended to start a school and that in order to claim benefits from the Government, he had obtained the caste certificate. In the cross-examination said witness has stated that Parashuram himself had obtained the caste certificate as per Exhibit D15. The trial Court on examination of the said document has found that the over-leaf of Exhibit D15 contained a declaration of R. Parasuram and his mother who appear to have affixed their LTM and nobody has identified the said thumb impression. Trial Court has also found that no evidence was brought on record to indicate that Parasuram ever intended to start a school and has thus concluded that Exhibit D15 appears to be false and created document. The trial Court has further observed that said document in any case would not come to the aid of defendant No.23 to prove he being nephew of R. Parasuram. - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 22. As regards Exhibit D7 legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar produced by defendant No.23, the trial court has found that the said document apparently has been obtained at the instance and upon the affidavit filed by defendant No.23. Thus, the trial Court has declined to accept the case of defendant No.23 to be the nephew and nephew of deceased Parashuram and both belonging to Schedule Caste Community. 23. On the issue of proof of will, while answering Issue Nos.3 and 4 at paragraph 33, the trial Court has opined that since defendant No.23 has failed to prove that he is nephew/legal heir of late Parasuram, he was a stranger to said Parasuram which fact itself created suspicious circumstances regarding late R.Parasuram purportedly having bequeathed the suit property in favour of defendant No.23 by executing a Will. The trial Court has further observed that the said Will though allegedly executed by Parasuram on 25.03.1992, was handed over by attesting witness to defendant No.23 only on 15.03.1993 i.e. after almost one year from the date of death of Parasuram. It has questioned about the process as defendant No.23 who claims to be the nephew of Parasuram and having been taking - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 care of him not to know about execution of Will till 15.03.1993. No evidence was brought on record as to how the said attesting witness handed over the Will to defendant No.23. The trial Court has also, at paragraph 35, found that on the strength of Application I.A.No.III filed by the plaintiff, a court commissioner was appointed for conducting inventories of the properties found in the house of late Parasuram and the said court commissioner had visited the house on 17.04.1993 along with the police authorities and had conducted the inventory prepared with regard to the list of movables, documents, cash etc. found in the house. It has also taken into consideration that soon after the demise of Parasuram, it was a tenant who had informed about his death to the Frazer Town police station, and had requested them to take over the possession of the house of Parasuram, as there was nobody to look after and protect the property. Accordingly, police had visited the house of Parasuram and had locked and sealed the door. The trial Court has also found that these events were sufficient for the attesting witness of the Will to disclose the same to the defendant No.23. The trial Court has also found that defendant No.23 himself had several occasions to disclose about the fact - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 of Parasuram having executed the Will dated 25.03.1992, bequeathing the suit property in his favour. Though he had come to know about the Will on 19.03.1993 instant, and registered the same on 30.06.1993 and the court commissioner had visited the property on 17.04.1993 conducting the inventory handing over movables including cash to the custody of the police. Thus, the trial Court has found the very introduction of the Will itself is suspicious. 24. Appreciating the evidence of DW2-B.K. Gangadharan stated to be the attesting witness to the said Will, the trial Court has found the said witness claimed to be the resident of a house bearing No.515 situated at Periyarnagar, Bengaluru, has pleaded ignorance about the name of the owner of the said house. The trial Court has also taken note of the fact that the said witness not having his identity card, ration card or voter's ID card issued by the Election Commissioner to show his name as Gangadharan. The trial Court has thus declined to accept the case of defendant No.23 of he propounding Parashram executing the Will bequeathing the property in his favour. This Court do not find any error or irregularity in trial Court - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 appreciating this part of the evidence and coming to the conclusion to discard the evidence of defendant No.23. Thus defendant No.23 has failed to prove that he is the sole heir and legatee of deceased Parasuram. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 25. Before parting, appropriate to note that this Court by order dated 29.01.2026, on hearing the submissions of the counsel of the parties and on the possibility of invocation of Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had directed Additional Government Advocate to implead State Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department represented by its Principal Secretary, M.S. Building, Bengaluru as party/respondent No.29 to the case. And had directed to secure the entire records in respect of Exhibit D15 a purported caste certificate and to file affidavit of concerned officer who had issued the said caste certificate. Pursuant to which Smt.Sharadha, working as Tahsildar Grade-II, Bengaluru North Taluk had personally appeared and filed affidavit indicating that upon thorough search made by the custodian of the record room a report was submitted stating that the records pertaining to Ex.D15 - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 purportedly issued in the year 1981-82 were not found. This Court however further directed the Deputy Commissioner to investigate the matter and to file a report with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the certificate produced at Ex.D15. Accordingly enquiry report dated 20.02.2026 prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban was filed along with a memo by learned AGA. Said report indicated that after thorough verification and enquiry on the available records in the North Taluk office and report from the concerned official it was found there was no reference available in the Taluk office pertaining to the caste certificate dated 20.10.1981 and as such it was reported that caste certificate dated 20.10.1981 was not genuine. 26. Learned counsel for defendant No.23 has also placed his objections on record to the report filed by the Deputy Commissioner. This Court has not expressed any opined on the report filed by the Deputy Commissioner. The aforesaid aspects are placed on record. 27. Notwithstanding the above, for the aforesaid reasons and analysis this Court do not find any reason and ground to - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20023 RFA No. 320 of 2008 interfere with the findings and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Judgment and decree dated 20.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.2483/1993 by the trial Court is confirmed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SKS/SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15