SUMITRABAI Vs. MAHADAVRAO NEELKANTHARAO MADGRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by plaintiff against the decree and judgment dated March 21, 1975 made by the Civil Judge, Havcri, in 0. S. No. 9 of 1973.

(2.) Before we deal with the plaint averments it will be convenient to refer to the relationship between the parties to the suit. We start with Kashinath Naik. He had two wives....(i) Ganga Bai and (ii) Kamalabai. Gangabai died leaving behind her only daughter-Shakubai. Kamalabai had two daughters (i) Sumitrabai - plaintiff, and (ii) Indirabai - defendant-2. Sumitrabai has one son and two daughters. IndiraBai has two sons and 4 daughters. Madhavarao, defendant-1, is the first son of Indirabai. Malhar Kulkarni is the husband of Sumitrabai and Ncelakantharao is the husband of Indirabai. Kashinath Naik died leaving behind him the above relations and also lands measuring about 45 acres. After his death, plaintiif and her husband started living in the house of Kamalabai and managed the properties for about 30 years. In 1961 they moved to Ranebennur for the sake of education of their children. Ranebennur is about 10 miles away from Kuppelur, the village in which Karnalabai was residing. It is said that Kuppelur then had no High School. Madhavarao. defendant-1, ever since his childhood lived with his grand-mother, Kamalabai. In 1961, after plaintiff and her husband left Kuppelur, Madhavarao started managing the properties of Kamalabai. On June 24. 1967 Kamalabai died. It is said that she had executed a Will dated June 10, 1967 bequeathing ai! the properties in favour of Madhavarao. Madhavarao on the strength of that Will got his name mutated in the relevant revenue records. On coming to know of this developement, plaint'ff instituted the suit for partition claiming her legitimate share in those properties.

(3.) Plaintiff has inter alia alleged : Kamalabai was suffrering from jaundice and rheumatic pain since 2 months prior to her death. She was not in a position to understand the consequences of her actions. Madhavarao and his father with their well-wishers secretly and fraudulently obtained the signature of Kamalabai with an evil intention to take all the properties for themselves. They have created an ante-dated Will in the presence of the Sub-Registrar, Ranebennur, and got it registered without making it known to Kamalabai. The said Will was fraudulently got up and late Kamalabai had no intention of bequeathing her properties in favour of Madhavarao. Kamalabai was not in sound and disposing state of mind at the time or execution of the Will. The Will was not binding on plaintiff and it is void and unenforceable. So stating she has asked for possession of her one-half in the suit Properties,