CHINNA NARASIMHALU Vs. KURUBARA BASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these matters -the revision petition and the Miscellaneous appeal-arise out of the same proceeding.

(2.) One Huchamma had filed OS No. 5 of 1972 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bellary, against respondents 1 and 2 for a declaration that the gift deed dt. 12-2-1970 got executed from her, was obtained by fraud and coercion and as such, the same be cancelled and for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant interfering with the suit 'A' Sch. properties. During the pendency of the suit, Huchamma died on 6 1-1973 leaving a registered will dt. 11-2 1969 bequeathing all her properties to the revision petitioner. The petitioner filed IA No. II in the trial Court for bringing him on record as the legal representative of the deceased Huchamma on the basis of the aforesaid will left by her. There was a delay in filing the application IA 2, therefore, an application IA No. 1 was also filed for setting aside the abatement. The lower Court has held that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay and for setting aside the abatement; but however, with regard to the question as to whether the petitioner can be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased Huchamma, it has been held by the Court' below that the will claimed to have been executed by the deceased Huchamma is not a valid will therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered to be the legal representative of the deceased Huchamma On the basis of this finding, the Court below has rejected both, the applications. As against the order rejecting the application to bring the petitioner on record as the legal representative of the deceased Huchamma, the petitioner has preferred the top noted civil revision petition and as against the order refusing to set aside the abatement, as the said order is appealable and the appeal lay to the Dist. Court, the petitioner has preferred the Misc.A No. 103 of 1976 before the Dist. Court. As both the cases related to the same subject, the aforesaid appeal being the Misc A No. 103 of 1976 has been withdrawn from the file of the Dist. Judge, Bellary. Accordingly, both the matters are heard together.

(3.) The lower Court has held that the will in question is not valid because of the following reasons ;