mm HIGH COURT QF KAI1iNATAKA AT BANCEALORE 3Z3ATE}lZ3 'I"E~IIS TEE 15"' IDAY 01? AUGUST, 2068 BEFORE Tm: H€)N'BLE zvm. JUSTICE ?sE'AGA':\='IC)HAE\E D;~.;r%_ ' " *'
R.F.A. 0. 496}?! 085
BETWEEN :
–.u-nu…-….-….–____
S:-i. P CHANDRASEKAR
S.-‘Q LATE 1\»~{PERLTMg\L
AGED 5330131″ 57 YEARS
as :as::1 131′ FLOOR,
PU’I”I’}E:.RY TOWN LAY(I>U’I’
XVILLIAMS “r<:)w';~2" ;::xii:E;Ns1::~;r V , i ‘ _
BANGALORE-46. V — ”
(By Sri. M D R;xGHLn~é,sx’r%-;(,’: 313K291. 3 1
ANT} :
n-no-vvn——
3 3:5. QM:rf*§2.AKAsHV _
$30 m:I”::? 1¥aiFERI.,MA1_: _ V _
AGED ABQU’-3″ 54 ”
.:f1*ImY .’.{(7i\VN LAYCEUT
‘e\r”IlI;Ix’gMS IO’WN’VE}iTT;NSIQN
” BA1*$s”iA;LC}}{_¥;:«§§6
sr:’.;- RANA§3:ENTT§R_.5%;N
SfO’;E:.A’I’E P-V RA:»{A(THAE\TI)R
AGEI3 iA’ES’D:[V_E-§:\’i”T’ 26 YEARS
; # 51.} SECOND MAIN ROAD
WIILIé%..M’S TOWN EXTENSIGN
‘ ., BA.N§TiALC)RE–46. R,ESPi;¥N'[}EZ\T1′”S
ta ,’
, j, ‘ ‘ ~ {‘t«wiSri’.V–B” i’R.r–&K:’\SI~L ADV, FOR
* ivI.5S LAWYERS INC, ADVS. FOR R4
V I , _ S£L (i’1§3″<ISHNA.?\«IL?R'F}IY, ADV, FCJR R-2}
(+»~'*
TEIIS EPA 13 FILED {NS 96 OF CFC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT. 17.11.04 PASSED
O'S.NC}.3.}208/97 ON THE FELE OF THE X;-VIVEII ADDL, CITY CI'~fH_.
JUDGE, MAYO I:-IAL1. UNTFI7, BANGALORE, CCCH N(}{3'9,»
DISMT{SS§.NG TFE SUKT FOR DECLARATIOIVS.
THIS REA cc>:\.-Hm ON FOR HEARING ms mY,7
CCEURT DELIVERED TIE FOLLOWING;
JUD GME3’v’T :
This ztppezsl is direcyted against {me judgmént .:,-and €k;= r:;f€:1e ¢3a{s:;i’,.,,
E7,1L2{>(}4 in (3.3, Na. 112-335199′: pasf:;ecE’v–§:):.1§3″t.i1r;°,t x:4;”‘ar.1:: ;r»;;1{::_ézi}.is::_;;i’:”Ci-s?:u
{fivil Judge, Ex-V1a:mHa1_£ unit, Bangaliora, :1is:&nis’§iz:§’*&3:._§: suit’é$t”th::~=p5Iaintiff
far s:ieciare:£i{m of titla, i*ecmfe1’§:’ ;1V(>§;:s’esis§Q:iT1′ imofita.
3. Thfi agpeilant £313 p1aifit.éfE’ i’¢sjT:Q:§{isé:3£A§.&V’3;$a”:: the zieférnchzmts
beibre the *r:aa1″‘c:m§%;;’ Fefiifaenw-niéraca, «i’r’1″‘i*hi£§ judgxnerzi, tho: parsies :23.’-E:
rérfewed ta saws béf’%;Véf%:AL.tI1€
3. The plaintifi’ c<5:1i<;;z1d$'—-.,_£11at the plaint schedule p1'Qp€1'E}='
<31'igina113=fb£:E<;ngs 1&3'-.¥1i$"gfanci.m0th€r Chimmmma. Under a sefilement
" _dé£:id «”
defernciant l’€if’3.1S€d ta Vacate and Ilaild over the pessessien of the sciwdule
properiy E9 the piafixztifif. Having rm ether aitema.ti.vs, {ha plaintiff filed
0.3. NU: 1I.2(}8./199?’ fer deaziamtien of titie, recavery of possessionvgi1d_ .__
for mesne an-efits.
4. The firat defendant entamd appeamncfé §efctc..thej T”.l’iiE1,i,:’.lv:.’»i!'”tVV;I’vvfV#,'”‘V’V
flied written statment inter alia disputing the ex €:r;uii’Qn of t1.’1.§:”‘ ‘§Vifl ”
apposed the ciairn of tha plaintiff. The S€’€Q:.Ii(1 €1€f€I.:1(i£t}fV Q11 “fox
know abet}! the pendency ef the szmfileci an-apgéiicafiszvg I0 as
an zacidjtienal defendant. The ‘Iu”%ie1i.T”{7Yt:u;§:= }31l§§wa§%<i.V:Athar; imifilaaciizlg
applicatien and thus the ficgnd deféfidéigi c_::§§z:1(§e._v.()"£1VV-1'6<Yf'V('f-'Vi'e;.i. The second
cisfenciant azisso filed 3«xzri§t§en1:Ajs; t;a_§jen1*.§;:t_mgr a.}ia@;0ntcfiéf.ng that Raja.rnma!
was mt the a§:"#V$!l'I')'I.¥'.:1Kf&3A'tI}.1;*'g;'!}:V€!"1' c}f:iTVVfE:s:'se}::ii:*du1<: _§f€é§xc11}¥ and that 511.6 had me
right to exacutéihé Wiii Ha: ftlrther contends that under
§E1S§)ii:i01lS circumstances' the Wil.i-,hais~~i¢0me into existence, On the basis ef
g::7£w.§iings,;:fi'v: Tgiai §30m1f:*az::ar..i«:he foikxwing issues and axdditiconal issue
fér gzs; a§;§:ssid§a*a;iiun':« .. 7 __
I.' plaintiff prmres that Rajammal was the czwner
z Quit schedule praperty?
“Elia ;Wheti1er the plaintiff proves thai SHIT. Rajammal
V ‘ baqueathed suit schedtfie property to the galaintiiflfi’
‘ ‘ ” Wl1ethc”:r defendant proves that suit property is the joint
gzrmwerty sf himself and other’?
OJ/’
EV’, Whether the plaintiff gzvroves that he is the absclutc owner
of $116 suit rmhedule property?
X21 Whether the plaintiff is entitled ta pessession of the
propcrty?
VI, Whether the piaintiff is entitled tn meant: profi.m.’?v_uIfVV.%¢;)V, T
much’?
VII, ‘W11cthert.h.e vakuatinn den:-,£s_ pr0;34e’s’–.’.-‘A — ..
VIII. What (tears: at erder?
g H. . M _
I. Wlxether flan: suit of tlié ;;Iafiitfl”fiS E2;_4L:f1*[‘c::i{‘_t:’x;f””ti§fr:t2’?
S. Be-fare the 1friez.i’«(§{§urt {£16 gfiaizsitiff.efiatniJ1§§1_fihree Witnesses :23
;?.W .1 in F.W.3 The first defendant
was sexamixzeéas .?C–“W.V ‘1.:11a_§i'<se¢Gn;i'vd§:fan£iant was examined as DW
and they have not » proiiI1c%:d an?—d£:cumants. The Trial Court on
31}[§1'8Ci£I€§0':f1'Of.I.h€ 33k:»';z€2i_z15g*.-s, oral and documentary evidence on record
'¥1_ei&'£i12i2tV' 33- the zzbsaizlie owner ef the schedule pmpcm". The
Triuél-.CTV<;z::1Vf:s1<fT1'3;€:zj rhea! the plaintiff has fiiikid to }I'%E°(,W€'« {he axecuiian
the A\;'-E311 as; ~:'§§i;§;a§i'ad Imdar Si:ct.i0n 68 of the Evidence Ac-1'. and
" jv»-vmjzissequentljf di_S:i'I1i§s@d the suit 0f the plaintifi Hangs, this appeai.
ff : 6[E~i§:arc£ arguments can both the side and pemsed £113 entiw: empeal
_ p3:pisfs;§
Cjkwrx/\'
7. Ssetimz 63 of the Evidence Ac’1′. mandatss the axaxnination of am
attesting Witness W110 is aiivtzg subject :0 prmeas sf Court and cagazible of
giving :wide:z:1<:.¢, While in.terpmt1'ng the scope of Ssction 68 01' the Act .,tVhi-s ".__
Cmxrt in the sass: of ET, Sumgypa and another Vs. Sri Sa.tchidhe::1:;i:t1'e::ic7;rz:j: ;. é '
Sz:.m.sWa?:hi Swazmiji Pubiic Cha1"itab¥€ Tmst and Qthem, 11…?
31! 5 heid that even if Ehe wili is registered undat 'chap_;;?rk)fs,*i$ig3n§_0f Ifidi;m V «V
Reg'st-ratien Act 1908, Whethsar me execmion nf tém "Will isTz¥;{!:;x§.ti¢€i of .
denied, it is zmcssary to cal! an attesting wiiméss in preirf ef'Ae}iecu'i§_on of
the said Will, Under no circumstaficqs, th£3 1§i'{i£;f' Qf Véxzacution {if rife Wiil
is clispensedwithinlaw. ._
3. It is net in riiapute }t}.1aIJ’»t.hf; s’cr§b.e_ 3f thjeI’.v”wilI was om:
Ran.gaawamy:’V’éixid’ “t1=..éf’. :12vo”§:’fVéiita:é.tingg witxjéééés are Eknath and Sri.
Mahendm. Thé’ .u1idispim2d is’ :31§£t—t.Ije.~scribe Ranaswamy and Ekanath
am not alive. Furtl1ér..it nQi._~:§isp¥J§:€ that the ether attesting witness to
._Wili Sri. Mdizendxa is aiive. To a. specific quegtion in the
e1’oss~¢.2:3′;n§11z¢tiVo1aMQEEW. I he says that ha is not geing to c;:r0ss–e:x:am%m:
V ma aItesti1:g’wifnVé%:§.Mvahendra. Theugh there £5 no cmpianation in the
éavigiencrrs of P.”.-‘;yi1″ést0 why he is not examining the attesting Wifnflfiifi Sri.
?~E’fi}}3§IIi{1l”éE,’ the sa=me is; explained before the Court by stating that the
fi_1;yi11fifV£'”has: filed a suit a.g2,inst Sri. Mahenikzx in 0.3, N0, 11.209399? fer
:£1 c€<':-_i~m*z1tien and pessesssion 0f the pmint schedule property mentioned
" therein. In. View of this litigaticm between the plaintiff and the attesting
\../
dxfl
Ox
witness Sn'. hrlahcndra, he was not eéstamined before the Tréai Ceurt. It is
not the case of the p1ain.t-iffthzzt this witness Sri. Malzetndra whe is aiive is
not stfiajected E0 the process -sf C0111': car n-at capabie of fixsing «.=:v%de1:1s::-s'-3*.
when an attesting witnass i3 a.1ive, it iii xaecessesry ta exaxtzéne that V&'itn£r£%:$–.j
$0 take the Wifi aa an exridmcfi an the rezmrci. f<'u:'th.er if the"
witness Sri, Ex»-tiaheniira is; ¢:mmi.m:ci bsafore the Trial
::I:.:«f<~*:-n{I2::1§.3 Wili have an opgortlmity ta ;:;-1:fiin’r3;’ “anal; V%)xE3§; ‘
iha genalirwness of this exacuti-::n ofthrz: Wilt. If f<%:3a.r2'y_réas<mz; '£112: V'
witnesa {aims hostile: before the '{':1'..:} {7€3z11~é,.__§5t"i3 3130b»;3§m'f£};'t33a'R§:I;§Vit:¥é1i°
ta i'.'2E'0SS*"6X;'i§"E1§§"i€5' §"Eifi"§, in the cim§.1;na£a;:.5§:ii;-~§¥:. fi'izf_;3repetr' fa.-J. thré Trial
Camf: {$3 ca-szclude aha: Hm 'éfill is %*;::;M:s:"e:i%§cfi';–.¥V;7:a t1iia.V§}!gién£i.fli zmrticuiarly
£31 '£116 absence of €116 bsz;-3: ,e\s'id¢::;r;";Ie'"za'=£;i;i1ah}§)L..I'heref<}fs3 éhe impumaed
judgzneant an§!'V'dé'fire-a t§2é':f:ffi'i.aI C.£§t211 £:~:._'1"i.:iIb}e to be set aside and the
mz1't%e:*is a*equi%c-'cl is be rezfiafidsd %:<3«_'TVths: "17»;'iz:1 C-curt.
9. I,eameV:dL”–.§bunsfé1 ~_foi._Vi}1e…’~7131aintifi’ contends that against the
_3:i7f,§’StiHEgvfiv*§;’1}:§S:_%’§’ Sr; Z\/1Ié.he::dz_i;1__fl2e piaimiif filed QHS1 No. 112095 1 9.9′? for
Cien_:V1aré;tienVan;l_ 1:s)es:~:§§s»iQn of a portion ef the p1’0}:s:’:1’t}-‘ bequeamed under
the §5é;ri31″é:a:;-ass” in tha said Q,Sx No. 1:.2o9,:’1%99? the attastixzg
Witness $i’i. retnained ere:-park: and the suit flied by the 1:«1ai3::tifi’
‘ e,*4§;’:3″11:é £n,b__e deétséed. Ifiarned caunssi for {he galaintifi ftzrther wbxnits that
and decree in OS. No. 1120931997 had became fmai, Bu:
§6e’:;:”:.3=:–:§ mange} for that secmzd defendani contests 1 ‘5; pasition. 30 also
learned ct3u.ns::=1 for rite plaintiff cantends that the suit flied E33′ the seecermd
dafendant in P.1\4isu. N6. 108:’ £998 against ;3EainIifi’l1erein and othrsrrs fgar
partition and separsziva pessession £2}? share in the plaint sch.s:;§u’£:§§ ~.V_
properties mantiened therein iz1’$.’,”–.fI%’.’=§.§€.£? .’
abgemze 0!” p1*o;3e1* mamrial €321 ffiflflfd ét i&«:_’_not for fl.*.:;$:5 fit;
auceut thfi Cfiflififlfiflfi cf the Iea:’ne;u;i a0un;éeé’§1L»;:VfL§1*’ thgz §)}.éI;imV’._i;’1&’5i:’#i:at
and genuirwness {sf Elm Win &_11pf1<*:l'§i §5$,§':};%§§ix;3§!ent An
<7pp0rtLmit3«' is ta be provided to 2;§£1§ :11; ;»am :<M_;.;;§:-;:.}%.:;«f_. £1;¢ coxrect facts
besfare the Trial Court._,
TH}. Ft}? t};é'.f{i}l0V;§'ing;
I. _ ‘ lzsfifébfig ‘.:-.:.1_1’}m.'”<:¥§d.
.__i1n13′:.1§f1eé:——§Iadgn.ent and decree (sf the Triad Court
_ ‘vglgziteéiufi.3.1.2064 in 0.3. ‘#30. 112086199? jaassed by ma
Vvfiacsitienax City Civil Judge, Maya Hail unit,
‘ H iiégnigféifiore is hereby 3:31; aside.
, ” ‘£3ii.— matter is mman.cied to the Trial Court for freséh: dispersal
V ix: zsccmdance wim law as é:-:§peditic:us13-‘ as possible and in
any mien! mi: later than six momlzs from the date of re<.::=:ipt
dry
of wpy cf thés order.
IV. Registry is hereby directed ta retxzzn ‘Ehfi records fexfthwith,
Ordered accmdingiy,
LES”)! GSEEEQ8.