NARAYANAMMA Vs. LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged the judgment and decree of the Trial Court granted in favour of the respondents seeking relief of declaration and possession.

(2.) THE facts reveal that the appellants herein are the defendants and the respondents instituted a suit for the aforesaid reliefs. The suit property is the agricultural land described in the schedule to the plaint. The suit property was granted by the Government vide order dated 20.10.1986 in favour of Narayanappa, the father-in-law of the first plaintiff. The said Narayanappa had a son by name Ramappa who is the husband of first plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are their children. Ramappa pre-deceased his father Narayanappa and the plaintiffs claim that as they are the sole LRs of deceased Narayanappa, they are the absolute owners of the suit property and are entitled to the possession. As the first plaintiff had left the village and as there were no adult male members in the family, the appellant-defendant No.1 is said to have created a fictitious Will to get her name entered in the records and illegally is said to be in possession. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought for declaration and possession. The appellants appeared before the Trial Court and contested the suit instituted claiming that Narayanappa executed a Will under Ex.D1 in favour of the first defendant on 10.11.1992 bequeathing the suit property in her favour. Therefore, she claimed the absolute possession of the suit property on the basis of said Will. The Trial Court framed the issues and parties led the evidence. The first plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the documents Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. The defendants examined DW1 (first defendant) and Exs.D1 to D6 were marked. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel for parties and on appreciation of the material on record has decreed the suit holding that the Will is not proved. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the appellants approached the First Appellate Court in RA No.8/2011 and it came to be dismissed on merits on 03.07.2012. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) IT is the contention of learned Counsel for the appellants that husband of the first plaintiff had signed the Will Ex.D1 and as the deposition of attesting witness which was recorded in OS No.142/2007 was also produced, he would contend that the Courts below committed an error in rejecting the version of the defendants (appellants herein) and he would submit that there is a substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal.