S PADMAVATHAMMA Vs. S R SRINIVASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in R. A. 21/2000 on the file of Civil Judge (sr. Divn.), Mysore, arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O. S. 1434/90 which was originally numbered as O. S. 195/86.

(2.) THE appellants are the L. Rs of the 1st defendant. Respondents 1 to 5 filed the suit for declaration of title to the suit property and possession from the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs contend that Smt. Puttathayamma is the propositus. Her son, Subbarao pre-deceased her without any issues. After the demiseof Puttathayamma, her three daughters, Smt. Lalithamma; Smt. Kamalamma and Smt. Indiramma were entitled to succession in equal share of 1/3rd each. Smt. Kamalamma dies issueless. The plaintiffs contend that Indiramma also died issueless. Therefore, the plaintiffs who are the children of Lalithamma claim that their mother would be entitled to succeed to the estate of Indiramma and inturn after the demise of their mother, are entitled to the estate. Defendant 2 and 3 were tenants in the premises under the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant disputes title of the plaintiffs and contends that Puttathayamma executed a will in favour of Indiramma and that the heirs of the husband are entitled to succeed to the estate and not the plaintiffs. Hence, pray for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) THE trial court upholds the contention of the 1st defendant that Puttathayamma executed a will in favour of Indiramma and also finds that the plaintiffs are not entitled to succeed to the estate of Indiramma, in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 15 of the Hindu Succession Act (in short, referred to as The Act.) Thus, rejects the claim of the plaintiffs. The first appellate court finds that the will set up by the 1st defendant executed by Puttathayamma in favour of Indiramma under Ex. D7 is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and that the 1st defendant as the propounder, has not explained convincingly the suspicious circumstances to establish genuineness and validity of the will. Thus, holds that the plaintiffs have proved their title to the suit property as the natural successors to the estate and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and allowed the appeal and the suit. Being aggrieved, the L. Rs. of the 1st defendant have preferred this appeal.