GANGAVVA BALAPPA HADIMANI Vs. LAKSHMIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Second Appeals are filed by the defendants aggrieved of the common Judgment and Decrees passed by the Civil Judge Court, bagalkot, in R. A. Nos. 49 and 50 of 1992 dated 2nd September, 1994 confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23. 3. 1992 passed in O. S. No. 177/1989 and O. S. No. 333/1989 by the learned Munsiff, hungund, contending that there are substantial questions of law in these appeals, urging various grounds in support of their Case.

(2.) IN this Judgment, the rank of the parties is described in this Judgment as described in the trial Court for the sake of Convenience.

(3.) BRIEFLY necessary and relevant facts for the purpose of examining and considering and answering the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel on behalf of the parties with reference to the substantial questions of law framed by this Court are stated as hereunder. The plaintiff filed Original Suit (Old) No. 33/1986 before the Munsiff court Hungund claiming half share of the suit schedule property in pursuant to the will dated 24-4-1980 said to have been executed in her favour by late Balappa, her uncle, in respect of the suit schedule property bearing survey No. 144/1 measuring 7 acres 21 guntas of dry land of Hire-Malagavi village and another Original Suit was also instituted by her in respect of the very same property claiming half share of the property in question for partition of the half share of the property in question along with defendants-1 to 5 who is the mother and brothers of the plaintiff respectively contending that it is the joint ownership property of the plaintiffs father and her uncle late sangappa and Balappa in the Original Suit No. 333 of 1989. Both the suits were clubbed together at the instance of the parties as the subject-matter of the suit schedule property and the parties are one and the Same. The first and second defendants in O. S. No. 177/1989 and defendant No. 6 and 7 in O. S. No. 333/1989 who are Appellants in these Appeals have filed their written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff and other defendants inter alia contending that deceased Balappa has not executed the will Deed in favour of the plaintiff and alternatively it is contended that the will said to have been executed under the suspicious circumstances and further contended that by reading recitals of Exhibit P. 6, it is jn the nature of a Gift Deed or a Settlement Deed but not the testamentary document and by careful reading of the will at Exhibit P. 6, unlimited right is acquired by the first defendant under Section 14 (1) of the hindu Succession Act, 1956, and therefore no right was derived by the plaintiff in respect of the half share of the property in question and further it is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for the judgment and Decree in respect of half share of the property in question on the basis of will at Exhibit P. 6.