VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. SHYAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 17/0/2017 passed in R.A.No.133/2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Sullia, D.K.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the daughters of late Venkatesh Nayak. The plaintiff is the daughter through second wife of late Venkatesh Nayak and defendant No.1 is the daughter of said late Venkatesh Nayak through first wife. Defendant No.2 is the husband of defendant No.1. The marriage of defendant Nos.1 and 2 was performed in the year 1989. Venkatesh Naik had given sufficient money and jewels at the time of her marriage and after the marriage of defendant No.1, Venkatesh Nayak was living along with the plaintiff and her mother Shusheela at Potre of Kodiyala village. Defendant No.1 was living with defendant No.2 at Ajjavara of Sullia taluk. The plaintiff alone was taking care of Venkatesh Nayak and her mother Shusheela and the plaintiff was married in the year 2000 when the Venkatesh Nayak was alive. The plaintiff and her husband continued to stay along with Venkatesh Nayak and Shusheela and they were taking care of them and due to love and affection towards plaintiff, Venkatesh Nayak bequeathed his entire property by executing a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 15/6/2005. The Venkatesh Nayak died on 19/12/2005. After the death of Venkatesh Nayak, the plaintiff is enjoying the properties as the absolute owner of the same. The properties were acquired by the plaintiff is by virtue of a Will except 1.50 acres in Sy.No.180/2 as described in the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff filed an application for change of katha and defendant No.1 had objected the same and the same was rejected and mutation was entered as per the Will. After the death of Venkatesh Nayak, the plaintiff along with her mother and husband were residing in the plaint 'A' schedule property and the plaintiff also in possession of the plaint 'B' schedule property and when defendant No.1 tried to interfere with the possession of the property of the plaintiff, a suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction. In pursuance of the suit notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and disputed the very execution of the Will in favour of the plaintiff. But they have admitted the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities regarding the change of khatha and also order passed by the Executive Shiresthedar and order passed by the Assistant Commissioner but denied the possession of the 'B' schedule property by the plaintiff and claimed 1/3rd right over the suit schedule property by issuing a legal notice and also contended that the Will is a forged document.