IN THE HIGH 00113? as KARNATAEKA BfiNGAL!.I:3RE.: . T 1:'
DATED THIS THE 69*' pay op' Jzjrvg "
BEFORE:-. J
THE HQNBLE M}%;..gL;si?Ii:§;~é;.s "BQPANi§A
REGULAR SECGNIDVA?P}3;:'§L:'§iO;_§5i§i}j»2_0O2
BETWEEN :
1 SHIVABA-SKFPA
S/O LATL?BAgSE.PPA' » _
AGE1} 4&2 YEARE:1;;.,_ , '
OC(§AGRi'G{}LTU§§E § .
R [01 HATTzGU':3*aA'*J1L;LA<3E,- -
flNDHAHURTAafl1")Y* V'
we LATE BASAPPA _
;~g.c::m:3s'~1;rzr::.e+.1es """" "
, «.;:»c:r: .éaC';i2ICULTURE
R'/<)":mfriCS'. "3162: fL1ri};i§éi::.'v;a1t;vés
that, the suit Enjoyed
by him as an '
iv) Does; .. t b V. obstruction
'
V) " is relief of declaration
vi) de<E:1v:cAo;r9' Q1361' ?
tf1z_=.__ PW 5.1 to 4 and marked Exhs.PI
7. D11 considerizzg the pleadings and the evidenca put
that the plaintifiii have failed to prove that SInt,Bas111111a died
1.
»
(-
intestate and in that ccvntaxt, rtzlying ciiflzhe «WILL 3&5′
Ex.DLi has pmocedcd to dmzxee the su_itA;g_ A.
8. The First Appeflatq {‘..o1’1:z”‘i:”%sL;ze.T;$_w’VVi1a_§?. thfi:
matter in the same fines “flag conciusion
that the plahzaiffi héivg died
intestatt and j_. ‘ ;Vs_af1’é –11<)t entitled to
succwti A' finch held that the
defe:1daI1l:*;%;Afindcr Ex.D1 i.e:., the WILL
tzxecuted by i1»a\'i€. 00131:: in possession of the
_ 'V The écre therefore before this Court in
_9';'T:1;js €§6e;§~t_1.avhi1c admitting the appeal on 3.7.2002
substantial qucstiona of law for
lucflilfiiklfirafifiit which read as Ilcrcundetr:
" Whether the Courts below could have dismissed
the plaintiffs suit by accepting the defence set
up by f1}) defendants that the deceased
conciusitm that the plailltiff has fiat
Basamma died intestate. _ . Av ]
13. G11 flat: other hand, as .a7g.£;f.i.I:st “the eas€.V_pH§”‘f3I€’h
by the plailltiflis stating {hat of
Basamma had aucccedcd vt”c:–.I}1g cf intestate
succcssioll, the defitndants’ Ease of the
plahxfifis by would not be
entitled to the hiaitivexccutesd a WILL in
their f’avg.;u~ V:§i.§ if III: piaitltiffa were legal
heirs, the has been bloken by the
said WILL and”fl19$Itft.i1rz Ivthew defendants claim right to the
IV:;Ifi3}1fC1I’1′}”‘:.1IE17IiL:1t3III’ the which was xmazrkezci as Ex.f31.
T115. ‘lags? 3.52 that when a person piaces relialme on
I a WII;L?wthc is always on the pmvpounder of the WILL
.. ..provz=: tbvjfivaiidity or othciwisa of the WILL. In the instant
jiffévas momso that the defendants were required to
the: WILL since it was cointrmdad by the piamnm that
I ‘éfireu the WILL set up by the defendants hats mt been pmved
32
v
up
In-fl
1.»
shall not be prejudiced by the View talggtn cariiex’ u
mamsess the evidence in its conect :_ f
that the paras’ 3 have lmen iifigatixlg t}4iis 1aattc:f :3 V
time, the trial Coufi: shaii make “endeiavo1 1’1*’-tq”3.= dfigfiéidcr
and dispose of the suit as not
later than six manths fhtf ‘éflé-f5.V:V_fi;Afs*t_Vappcara1xm.
Since the partics arc’: VJ.’eI)1$$€’I3..tV¢ §V’j counsel,
the parties are trial Curt en
1c;,7.2oo3 as rgigfiéia the trial court
shall
The :é’£@]5c’§’£31Vi.S; gifilmscd of. No order as to
costs’ The ta; LCRs forthwifla.
Sd/-w ' Eufiga