IRAPPA ANGADI AND ORS. Vs. NEELAMBIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree passed dated 03.10.2008 in O.S.No.176/2005 by the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Hubli confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2016 in R.A.No.126/2008 passed by the V Addl. District Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

(3.) Brief facts o f the case are the suit schedule properties and other properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and husband of defendant No.1 Shekhappa Angadi. The suit properties were allotted to the share of the said Shekhappa and the said Shekhappa died issueless. While the said Shekhappa was suffering from HIV, the defendant No.1 deserted him and deserted him and went to her parents house. Shekhappa was working as teacher in Bellatti village and started to reside in his sister's house. The plaintiffs being the sons of elder brother of Shekhappa were having special love and affection towards Shekhappa. They were very cordial with him since the childhood and during the time o f his illness, they provided him good treatment and also rendered services to him. Thereafter, as Shekhappa had sensed that he will not be cured with disease, he executed a Will on 10.04.2001 at Bellatti village in the presence of witnesses. In the said Will, he has stated that immovable properties held by him should go to the plaintiffs and portion o f LIC amount to his mother defendant No.2 and remaining LIC amount should go to his wife defendant No.1 and she should get all pensionary benefits and savings bank accounts, Rs.10,000/- should go to his sister. Plaintiff NO.3 is a minor under the care and custody o f natural father and their names have been changed in the records and even as regards the insurance amount, the defendant No.1 has received and also all other pensionary benefits. In the month of March 2005, last week, the defendant No.1 came to the suit properties along with her henchman and interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs stating that it is the property belongs to her husband and prevented them by causing obstruction to the cultivation. Hence, the plaintiffs constrained to file the suit.