H N PADMANABHA HEGDE Vs. SUNEETHA J RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is by the defendants 6 to 13. The only substantial question of law raised and urged before me is as follows;

(2.) The entire case set up by the appellants/defendants 6 to 13 centres around Ext. B1 Will, which is taken as a defence against the claim for partition by the plaintiff, one among the sisters of the appellant. The facts are as follows:

(3.) One Narayana Hedge, the father of the parties died in the year 1979, leaving his widow, defendant No. 1 who died during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5, five daughters and the appellants/defendants 6 to 13, 8 sons. The parties are governed by Mithakshara Hindu Law. According to the plaintiff, her share in the property was not given to her in spite of the persistent demand. Finally it resulted in Ext. A1 suit notice for partition. This was replied to in Ext. A2 notice sent on behalf of the appellants, who took up the plea that the plaintiff was not entitled to partition or to any share in the property left by the said Hedge, as he had executed Ext. B1 Will on 05/04/62. In the wake of this reply, the plaintiff instituted a suit alleging that Ext. B1 Will was forged and that there was no reason for him to execute a will excluding all the 5 daughters including her and their mother from inheriting the properties left by him. The suit was defended on the strength of Ext. B1 Will contending that it was duly executed by the father of the parties.