Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1098 (KAR)

M. P. Suryaprakash v. Narasimha Sastry

2011-11-15

H.S.KEMPANNA, N.KUMAR

body2011
JUDGMENT N. KUMAR, J.—This is a plaintiffs appeal against, the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. The plaintiff is the son of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry who was the propositor. The first defendant is his elder son through second wife. Second defendant is his wile. Third and fourth defendants are his daughters. Plaintiff is the second son. Defendants 5 to 8 are the legal representatives of Late Sri M.P. Suhramanyam, the son of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry through, his first wife. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that his Late father M. Puttanarasimha Sastry was a Vedic Scholar in Yejurveda. He died at the ripe old age of 92 years on 8.12.1998 inte state. Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry hailed from Manuvina Kudike. Koratagere Hobli Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District. Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry had Inherited wet land and dry lands from out of which he used to derive considerable produce such as paddy, ragi, ground nuts, etc., to meet not only his family needs but also have monetary value thereof and thereby he could save money by his frugal habits. Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry came to Bangalore some time during 1920 after having acquired the necessary knowledge in Vedas in different places including Chidambaram. He was considered as a learned man in Vedas and more particularly Yejurveda. Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry was known as a proficient teacher and he was employed as a Vedic Scholar and teacher at Magadi Karnika Patashala, Shankarapuram. Basavanagudi, Bangalore. 5. Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry had married twice. His first wife Suit. Subbamma passed away immediately after delivering a son by name M.P. Subramanya, Subsequently Sri M. Puttanarasimha Sastry married the second defendant. From the wedlock, the plaintiff, the first defendant and defendants 3 and 4 were born. The eldest son of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry viz., M.P. Subramanya passed away on 10.11.1998 and his wife and children who are his legal representatives have been made as necessary parties. The genealogical tree is produced. 6. Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry inherited the properties viz., the lands in Sy. No. 9 and 175 of Manuvikakurike. The eldest son of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry viz., M.P. Subramanya passed away on 10.11.1998 and his wife and children who are his legal representatives have been made as necessary parties. The genealogical tree is produced. 6. Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry inherited the properties viz., the lands in Sy. No. 9 and 175 of Manuvikakurike. Koratagere Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District, from his father Late C.B. Rangappa as a member of the joint family. To his share he had derived an undivided interest of 1. acre 8 guntas of wetland and 5 acres 19 guntas of dry land comprised In both the survey numbers. From out of the income derived from the ancestral property and also supplemented by his income Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry purchased the vacant site measuring 32 feet by 45 feet bearing No. 111/35, 4th Cross, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore-19 and constructed a dwelling unit in the ground floor for his self occupation with the members of his family which is more fully described as the ‘A’ schedule property, With the passage of time, with the income derived from the lands, he also constructed a first floor over the existing ground floor described in the ‘A’ schedule, Some time in the year 1982 Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry sold two items of the ancestral properties which had come to his share to his own brother Sri M. Suryanarayana Sastry by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 22.9.1982. From out of the sale proceeds which is a joint family nucleus and to some extent supplemented by his income, he purchased a vacant site at Banashankari I Stage, bearing No. 1204, Bangalore, measuring 44 feet by 44 and half feet which is more fully described as the ‘B’ schedule property. It was a revenue site. Subsequently, it came to be reconveyed in favour of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry, Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry was also able to put up a first floor construction over the ‘A’ schedule property from out of the income derived from the sale of the joint family lands, The kathas of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property were standing in his name during his lifetime. 7. 7. The plaintiff after he passed SSLC, he took employment to support his father in running the joint family and also continued his studies in evening college and obtained a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from MEI Polytechnic and he was employed in HAL for some time. During his employment he was helping his father financially. Subsequently for better prospects the plaintiff left for Saudi Arabia where he was earning fairly well and was regularly contributing for support of the family. From out of the income derived his father was able to acquire various movable properties described in Schedule ‘C’ and also by supplementing his own income. 8. The third defendant who is the eldest daughter of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry is married to one Sri Sathyanarayana who was working in some place outside Bangalore, The remaining members of the family were living happily in the ‘A’ schedule property. In the year 1.976 the marriage of the first defendant was performed. At that particular point of time, the third defendant came to attend the marriage and did not go back to join her husband with ulterior motives to some how knock off the properties described in the schedule casting an evil eye on the properties. The third defendant was also able to impress upon her parents by her tricks and stratagems and taking advantage of the ripe old age of her parents and their weak mind, started carrying tales about the sons with a view to prejudice the mind of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry and also the second defendant. With the passage of time the third defendant’s husband Sri Sathyanarayana also came to stay with Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry and both the husband and wife were able to use domineering influence on Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry who ultimately became a. stooge in the hands of the third defendant. Both the third defendant and her husband hatched conspiracy to oust the sons from the joint family by spoiling the atmosphere in the family. On account of the tricks and stratagems adopted by the third defendant and successfully spoiling the mind of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry the life of the first defendant and his family became miserable and, therefore, the first defendant left joint family house and started. living separately at the above mentioned address. On account of the tricks and stratagems adopted by the third defendant and successfully spoiling the mind of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry the life of the first defendant and his family became miserable and, therefore, the first defendant left joint family house and started. living separately at the above mentioned address. The third defendant and her husband having achieved their illegal objectives of carrying tales and spoiling the mind of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry In. so far as his relation with the eldest son shifted their attention on the plaintiff who was considered as a stumbling block in their ultimate quest for usurping the joint family properties. The plaintiff was made to suffer the pinprick at the hands of the third defendant, and her husband while Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry and the second defendant who were under their domineering influence had to be mute spectators to the humiliations perpetrated on the plaintiff. Subsequently in the year 1992 the plaintiff was married and he and his wife also suffered a lot of pinpricks, humiliation and chastisement at the hands of his eldest sister. However, the plaintiff was able to resist the illegal acts of the third defendant and her husband and had to have a separate establishment with his wife and child in the first floor of the ‘A’ schedule property, Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry and his wile could not do anything to prevent the illegal acts of the third defendant as he had not only lost his individuality but also mentally sick due to the unhappy atmosphere created by the third defendant. 9. Alter 1991 Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry’s health started deteriorating. He had also become physically weak and was suffering from bouts of forgetfulness since senile decay had already set in both in his body and the mind. He was also slowly losing his power of identifying people and places and taking advantage of the weak state of mind and the bodily conditions, the third defendant and her husband seemed to have got certain documents fabricated to claim the property for themselves to the exclusion of the plaintiff and the other members of the joint family. The third defendant since sometime has been proclaiming that Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry has bequeathed all the schedule properties described in the schedule in her favour to the exclusion of the plaintiff and the other male issues. The third defendant since sometime has been proclaiming that Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry has bequeathed all the schedule properties described in the schedule in her favour to the exclusion of the plaintiff and the other male issues. As far as his knowledge goes his father was never in a sound disposing state of mind to execute any document such as a Will Codicil and even if there are any documents in the nature of Will or a Codicil stated to have been obtained either by the third defendant or any other person, the same is not binding on the plaintiff since the making or the execution of such alleged documents are shrouded in innumerable suspicious circumstances. 10. Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry passed away on 8.12.1998 at Bangalore City. The plaintiff and the first defendant took upon themselves the responsibilities of the obsequious ceremonies consistent with the status and standard of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry by spending nearly Rs. 75,000/-. After the monthly ceremony was performed on 8.4.1999 the third defendant ably assisted by her husband Sri Sathyanarayana demanded that, the plaintiff should vacate the first floor of the ‘A’ schedule property and claimed that they have become the absolute owners of the schedule property. The plaintiff rebutted their contention and warned the third defendant and her husband from interfering with his possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and demanded that the third defendant should vacate the ground floor premises of the ‘A’ schedule property and live separately. The third defendant during the lifetime of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry had instigated him to institute a suit for the relief of permanent injunction in O.S. No. 3079/1993 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore City and on the strength of the injunction order the third defendant wanted to oust the plaintiff from the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. However, the suit was dismissed on. 2.4.1996 for non-prosecution. The third defendant got. issued a legal notice claiming that Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry had executed a. Will dated 25.5.1993 bequeathing all the properties in her favour. The plaintiff has not been furnished with the copy of the Will. In the plaint here serves his right to file additional statement or amend the plaint to raise such grounds as may be deemed necessary after the copy is furnished. However, the plaintiff has sent a suitable reply. The plaintiff has not been furnished with the copy of the Will. In the plaint here serves his right to file additional statement or amend the plaint to raise such grounds as may be deemed necessary after the copy is furnished. However, the plaintiff has sent a suitable reply. Plaintiff contended even otherwise he Is in settled possession and he is residing in ‘A’ schedule property in his own absolute right and defendants 2 and 3 have absolutely no right to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. Therefore, he sought for the relief of partition and separate possession of his legitimate share of all. the plaint schedule properties. 11. After service of summons, the defendant No. 1 has filed a detailed written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff. It is his specific case that the entire property came to be acquired by Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry out of joint sweat and labor of this defendant, plaintiff and the joint family nucleus, i.e., funds which emanated from and out of the properties at Manuvinakurike Villae, Koratagere Taluk. It was a joint family property of Late M. Puttanarasimha Sastry and his brothers. Late M. Puttariarasimha Sastry had no independent right to bequeath the properties in favour of the second and third defendant. After completion of his studies he is in gainful employment ever since 1971 in State Bank of Mysore. He has also contributed funds for the acquisition of the A, B and C schedule properties and putting up construction and super structures on the ‘A’ schedule property and also for the maintenance of the family. Late Puttanarasimha Sastry was not in a sound state of mind. Hence, the Will dated 25.5.1993 is not a valid Will. He is also entitled to a share in the joint family properties and he is prepared to pay the Court fee on his share. Therefore, he sought for a decree as prayed for by the plaintiff. 12. The second defendant filed her statement. She has asserted that the suit schedule property was an exclusive and independent property of her husband. He has disposed of the property during his life time by virtue of a bequest under a registered Will dated 25.5.1993. The plaintiff do not get any right in the family properties and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. She has asserted that the suit schedule property was an exclusive and independent property of her husband. He has disposed of the property during his life time by virtue of a bequest under a registered Will dated 25.5.1993. The plaintiff do not get any right in the family properties and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff and other sons of Puttanarasimha Sastry were living separately and they did not live in joint family. The question of co-parcener did not come in as there was no estate left behind the grand father of the plaintiff. The allegation that the Puttanarasimha Sastry died intestate is an absolute false. The allegation that the Puttanarasimha Sastry inherited wet and dry land, from out of which, he used to derive considerable products such as paddy, ragi, ground nut etc to meet not only his family needs but also have saved money, by his frugal habits are false and frivolous. The allegation that Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry was getting income from the ancestral property and he supplemented his income and purchased ‘A’ schedule property and constructed dwelling unit with the same is false. The acquisition of ‘A’ schedule property is exclusively out of the hard earnings of late Puttanarasimha Sastry and he had no ancestral estate to purchase the property or develop the property. Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry purchased a vacant site bearing No. 1204 situated in ‘B’ schedule property from the joint family funds is false. The allegation that the plaintiff alter he passed SSLC examination was supporting his father in running the joint family is false. The allegations made against the 3rd defendant-daughter are all denied. She has also denied all other allegations. She denied the allegation that Puttanarasimha Sastry’s health began to deteriorated and suffering from bouts of forgetfulness since senile decay had already set in both body and mind. The allegation that he was also slowly losing his power of Identifying people is also denied. It is denied that the plaintiff spent Rs. 75,000/- towards obsequies ceremony. She has specifically stated that there was no ancestral nucleus belonging to her husband Puttanarasimha Sastry and with great hard, toil and labour, her husband was able to earn. ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties with great difficulty. At no point of time he had even the assistance of the plaintiff and the first defendant herein. 75,000/- towards obsequies ceremony. She has specifically stated that there was no ancestral nucleus belonging to her husband Puttanarasimha Sastry and with great hard, toil and labour, her husband was able to earn. ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties with great difficulty. At no point of time he had even the assistance of the plaintiff and the first defendant herein. Since the relationship between the parents and the plaintiff was ruined, the plaintiff left the family and began to reside in rented premises and was employed and sometimes thereafter, he lost his job. By that time, the husband of the 2nd defendant had put up a first floor consisting of one hall one small room for the purpose of conducting vedic classes. He was conducting vedic classes in that hall. The plaintiff having lost his job having no avocation taking undue advantage of the old age of the parents and inability of the third defendant forcibly occupied the first floor and this was resisted to. Later, he left to a foreign country on employment and his wife and daughter remained in possession. The husband of this defendant had filed a suit for injunction but the said suit could not be prosecuted on account of his old age and he could not go to the Court and it came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The plaintiff and other family members were aware of the Will. The plaintiff is only a trespasser and he is in possession of a portion of the first floor. He has no right, title or interest, of any kind to be there, Her husband had no property to fall back and out of his own income, he constructed the property in piece meal. He availed the loan facility from the bank for the purpose of putting up a construction and constructed the house in piece meal. After some time, he constructed the first floor, Thus, he had put up a. const ruction and was living in the premises. Since the relationship of the husband of this defendant was ruined with the sons, they were completely depending upon the daughter who took care of the parents in old age. It is the third defendant who was taking care of the husband of this defendant and this defendant for the last several years. The plaintiff and the first defendant had abandoned this defendant and her husband. It is the third defendant who was taking care of the husband of this defendant and this defendant for the last several years. The plaintiff and the first defendant had abandoned this defendant and her husband. The suit schedule properties are the self-acquired and individual estate of her husband as early as 1993. Her husband having felt that his sons may not, come forward to take care of his wife as well the 3rd defendant decided to execute a Will when he was in sound and disposing mind. The plaintiff became more hostile towards the parents on coming to know the execution of the Will. Unfortunately, her husband died and the Will came into force. By virtue of the Will coming into force, the 2nd defendant becomes the absolute owner of the property during her lifetime. Hence, the plaintiff cannot challenge the same. He cannot prosecute the present suit and he has to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property. His occupation is unauthorized. Therefore, she also prayed for decree of possession in respect of the first floor premises. She denied that the plaintiff is in joint possession of the property and, therefore, she sought for dismissal of the suit. 13. The 3rd defendant also filed a separate statement traversing all the allegations in the plaint and denying all the allegations against her. She has specifically pleaded that her brothers became hostile to the interest of the father and did not take care of their parents. At last, this defendant was obliged to take care of the parents and the parents were taken care by her. The suit schedule properties are all the self-acquired Individual estate of her father. None of the brothers contributed for the acquisition and the acquisition was out of the sole earnings of her father. Thus, they have no right, title of any kind. She has not dominated the Will of her father. Her father was in a sound, healthy and disposing state of mind when he executed the Will in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The 2nd defendant becomes the immediate owner of the property. The plaintiff has no share of any kind and the 3rd defendant gets right only after the lifetime of the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant has gone away from the family long back and has settled himself well in his house. The 2nd defendant becomes the immediate owner of the property. The plaintiff has no share of any kind and the 3rd defendant gets right only after the lifetime of the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant has gone away from the family long back and has settled himself well in his house. Even the plaintiff had gone out of the family long back. At one point of time, the plaintiff felt that the property is likely to be given to this defendant as she is taking care of the parents and has resorted to the present attitude for occupying the premises by-harassing taking undue advantage of the helplessness of the aged parents and the helpless lady. Therefore, she sought for dismissal of the suit. 14. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaint proves that the suit properties are the joint family properties as pleaded? 2. Whether the contesting defendants prove that the suit properties were the self acquired properties of Puttanarasimha Sastry as contended? 3. Whether the 2nd defendant proves the execution of the Will dated 25.5.1993 by late Puttanarasimha Sastry referred to in the defence statement? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 7/30th share in all the suit properties? 5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled? 15. The plaintiff in order to support his case examined himself as P.W. 1 and produced 8 documents, which are marked as Exs. P1 to P8. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W. 1, 2nd defendant as D.W. 2 and attesting witness to the Will has been examined as D.W. 3 and they have produced 6 documents, which were marked as Exs. D1 to D6. 16. The trial Court on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on. record held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties as pleaded by him. On the contrary, defendants 2 and 3 have established that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired property of late Puttanarasimha Sastry. The 2nd defendant has also proved the due execution of the Will dated 25.5,1993 by late Puttanarasimha Sastry. Consequently, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, the suit came to be dismissed. The 2nd defendant has also proved the due execution of the Will dated 25.5,1993 by late Puttanarasimha Sastry. Consequently, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, the suit came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff is in appeal 17. Sri. L.S. Venkatakrishna, learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the judgment and decree of the trial Court contended that the evidence on record shows that the plaintiffs father late Puttanarasimha Sastry was a vedic scholar. He was not a purohit. His sole income was from teaching veda. He was able to manage the house because of agricultural lands, which fell to his share from his father. It is out of that income, he purchased ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties in his name. In ‘A’ schedule property, he has constructed dwelling house and he was residing there with his family members and he also constructed first floor premises. The plaintiff and 1st defendant, contributed their earnings for acquisition and construction of the property. Therefore, ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property are the joint family properties. When admittedly there was no partition during the lifetime of the father, the plaintiff is entitled to a. share in the schedule property. The trial Court committed a serious error in holding that ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties are the self-acquisition of late Puttanarasimha Sastry. In so far as Will is concerned, he submits that though it is a registered Will, it Is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Though the executant, of the Will had three sons, two daughters and a widow, all the three sons and a daughter has been excluded in the matter of sharing the property. The deceased-executant was not in a position of sound state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. The propounder of the Will has not stepped into the witness box. The evidence of D.W. 2 runs counter to the evidence of D.W. 3, the attesting witness. Merely because a Will is registered, the execution of the Will is not proved. Even if the signature on the document is admitted and execution is proved, that by itself would not confer any right on the legatee. The evidence of D.W. 2 runs counter to the evidence of D.W. 3, the attesting witness. Merely because a Will is registered, the execution of the Will is not proved. Even if the signature on the document is admitted and execution is proved, that by itself would not confer any right on the legatee. Further, they have to establish by acceptable evidence on record that the testator was in sound state of mind when he executed the Will and if there are any suspicious circumstances, they should dispel all the suspicious circumstances. Then only the Will get duly executed and in the facts of the case, the propounder of the Will failed to establish that the testator was in a sound state of mind and they also failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. Therefore, he submits that seen from any angle, dismissing the suit is illegal and the finding that the Will is proved is illegal and the same requires to be set aside and plaintiffs share is to be declared. 18. Per contra Sri. M.S. Puroshothama Rao appearing for the 2nd defendant pointed out that the so called joint family property was not yielding any income much less there was no nucleus, out of which Puttanarasimha Sastry could have purchased ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. After education at Chidambaram and Mysore, Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry was working as a Vedic Teacher in Basavanagudi for which he was paid, He was running classes in his house, It is from that income, he acquired ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. His contribution was recognised by the State Government and the Central Government for which he was paid the monthly honorarium, out of which he was living. Thereafter, he borrowed loan from the bank for the purpose of putting up construction. In fact, Exhibit D1 is the declaration dated 25.1.1956 given by his brothers in favour of Jayanagar House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., wherein it is stated that the property had been acquired out of the own earnings of Puttanarasimha Sastry and the trial Court also recorded a categorical finding that plaint ‘A’ schedule property was the self-acquired property of Puttanarasimha Sastry. Hence, the same is based on legal evidence and do not call for interference. In so far as execution of the Will Is concerned, the Will is executed on 25.5.1993. Hence, the same is based on legal evidence and do not call for interference. In so far as execution of the Will Is concerned, the Will is executed on 25.5.1993. The testator died live years thereafter, i.e., on 8.2.1998, The attesting witness D.W. 3 has clearly stated the due execution of the Will. It is a document prepared by an advocate, duly typed, duly signed by the testator and thereafter, it is duly registered in the concerned Sub-Registrar Office. There is no evidence produced on record to show that at the time of execution of the Will, Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry was not in a sound state of mind. The very fact, that Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry died five years after execution of the Will shows that on the day the Will was executed, he was in a sound state of mind. No doubt, there is discrepancy in the evidence of D.W. 2 as she was examined at. the age of 77 years. That discrepancy affects in any way proving of the Will. Therefore, he submits that no case for interference is made out. 19. Learned Counsel for the 1st defendant Sri. Ravishankar supported the case of the plaintiff. 20. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: (A) Whether the findings of the trial Court that the plaint schedule properties are the self acquired property of late Puttanarasimha Sastry requires interference? (B) Whether the Will Is duly executed in accordance with law and whether the propounders of the Will have satisfactorily explained the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will as “well as the state of mind of the testator at the time of execution of the Will? Point A: 21. The evidence on record discloses that late Puttanarasimha Sastry hailed from Munuvlnakudike Village in Koratagere Hobli, Madhuglri Taluk in Tumkur District. His father was late Sri. Seebi Rangappa. Seebi Rangappa has four sons. Late Puttanarasimha Sastry inherited land bearing Survey No. 7 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas and land bearing Survey No. 175 measuring 5 acres 19 guntas of land situated at Manuvinakudike. Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry left the village at a early age of 8 years in the year 1920 and had his education at Chidambaram as well as Mysore. Late Puttanarasimha Sastry inherited land bearing Survey No. 7 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas and land bearing Survey No. 175 measuring 5 acres 19 guntas of land situated at Manuvinakudike. Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry left the village at a early age of 8 years in the year 1920 and had his education at Chidambaram as well as Mysore. He was known as proficient teacher and employed as a Vedic Scholar and teacher at Magadi Karnlka Patashala Shankarapura, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. He was married to Smt. Subbarnma. She died after delivering a son by name M.P. Subramanya. Subsequently, Puttanarasimha Sastry married the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff, 1st defendant and defendants 3 and 4 were born to her. Though the plaintiff contends that late Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry was deriving the income through the agricultural lands, but In. the evidence all that has been stated is that he was getting only 6-8 bags of ragi, 4 bags of ground nuts, 2 bags of tamarind per year and 2 to 3 bags of paddy etc. Even if this evidence is to be accepted as true, those contribution is hardly insufficient, for the family of Puttariarasimha Sastry as he was having 3 sons, 2 daughters and wife. In fact, the evidence on record shows that as there was no partition among four brothers of Sri. Rangappa, the entire lands were cultivated by his brothers who were residing at village. Admittedly, Puttanarasimha Sastry at no point of time cultivated the land either directly or by hiring labour. It is noticed that. Puttanarasimha Sastry has not gone back to the village alter he left, the village. On the contrary, we have the evidence, which shows that he was getting a. salary of Rs. 25/- per month from Magadi Karanikara Patashala. He was also getting Rs. 1,000/- from TTD and Rs. 500/- from the State Government. He was a recipient of various awards from his learning. He was teaching students in his house, That is how he was managing his affairs. ‘A’ schedule property was acquired in the year 1955. The evidence on record shows that. he borrowed loan from. Jayanagar House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., to put up the construction thereon. At that point of time, he has got an affidavit sworn to by his undivided brothers and his father as per Annexure-D1 which, says that M. Puttanarasimha Sastry was employed as Yajurveda Teacher in Magadi Karnika Patashala. The evidence on record shows that. he borrowed loan from. Jayanagar House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., to put up the construction thereon. At that point of time, he has got an affidavit sworn to by his undivided brothers and his father as per Annexure-D1 which, says that M. Puttanarasimha Sastry was employed as Yajurveda Teacher in Magadi Karnika Patashala. He has applied for a. loan to the Jayanagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., in order to construct a house on his site No. 111 in Sunkenahalli Extension, Bangalore City. The said site No. 111 has been acquired by Sri. M. Puttanarasimha Sastry out of his own earnings and they have no manner of right, title or interest in the said site or the house he intends to build thereon and they have no objection to his dealing with, the said site and house thereon in any manner, he deems fit. This was sworn on 25.1.1956. If his father and three brothers who constituted ajoint family had no right in the property, which was acquired in 1956, the plaintiff who was not even born acquire no title. It is the case of the plaintiff that late Puttanarasimha Sastry executed Ex. P1 for consideration of Rs. 2,000/- and out of the said consideration, he has purchased ‘B’ schedule property, Ex. P1 is dated 22.9.1982. The recital in the document makes it very clear that. Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry received Rs. 2,000/- from his brother Suryanarayana Shastry. D.W. 2 has categorically stated in her evidence that no such consideration was received and her husband left the property to her brothers as they were in possession and cultivating the property, ‘B’ Schedule property was acquired in the year 1985. Documents were not produced to show that what is the consideration for acquiring the ‘B’ Schedule property. If Rs. 2,000/- was received by Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry in 1982 and he was managing the big family and in 1985, he acquired ‘B’ schedule property, then it cannot be said that he acquired the said property out of the sale consideration. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant have pleaded that alter they completed, their education, got employment, they were financially assisting their father and they have also contributed towards the acquisition of these properties. In examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit what was stated in the plaint is repeated. No evidence in. support of the plea is produced. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant have pleaded that alter they completed, their education, got employment, they were financially assisting their father and they have also contributed towards the acquisition of these properties. In examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit what was stated in the plaint is repeated. No evidence in. support of the plea is produced. If really the plaintiff and the 1st defendant have contributed any funds, they should have stated what is the salary they were getting from their employment. Out of the said salary, what is the amount contributed for acquisition of the property, what is the value of the property for which these properties were purchased. Absolutely, there is no evidence in this regard or any documentary evidence is produced to substantiate their claim that they were contributing funds for acquisition of the property. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the 1st defendant was employed in the year 1971. Alter getting employment, the first thing he did was to go away from his father. Similarly, the ease of the plaintiff who alter the marriage, left his father. When he lost employment, he left India and went to Saudi Arabia in search of employment. Nothing is produced on. record to substantiate their claim that they have contributed either for maintenance of the family or for acquisition of any property, Therefore, the trial Court on appreciation of these both, oral and documentary evidence on record has recorded a finding that the case of the plaintiff that schedule property are the joint family property is not substantiated by any acceptable evidence on record. On the contrary, defendants 2 and 3 have established their case that the schedule properties were self-acquisition of late Puttanarasimha Sastry. At this juncture it is also necessary to notice that late Puttanarasimha Sastry had a son by name Subramanya through the first wife. He also after the marriage left the parents and he is no more and his wife and children are brought, on record. There is no evidence to show that even the first son Subramanya had contributed any thing towards the family maintenance or acquisition of any property. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court is unexceptional and, therefore, we affirm the same. Point B: 22. Defendants 2 and 3 have propounded the Will dated 25.5.1993, which is marked as Ex. D3. There is no evidence to show that even the first son Subramanya had contributed any thing towards the family maintenance or acquisition of any property. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court is unexceptional and, therefore, we affirm the same. Point B: 22. Defendants 2 and 3 have propounded the Will dated 25.5.1993, which is marked as Ex. D3. It is typed in Kannada, It is prepared by an advocate. It is duly attested by two witnesses and also duly registered in the concerned Sub-Registrar office. Neither the plaintiff nor the 1st defendant either in the pleading or in the evidence has disputed the signature of Puttanarasimha Sastry on this solemn document. Their specific ease is 3rd defendant who started living with her parents from the year 1976 has spoiled the mind of Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry to knock off the properties. It is their further ease that on the day the Will came into existence, Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry was not in a sound state of mind. He had become senile, his health had deteriorated and he was suffering from bouts of forgetfulness since senile decay had already set. in both body and mind. They further contend that. Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry being a vedic scholar, when he was conscious he was of the view that after his death his son should do his obsequies ceremony. It is their specific case that even though Puttanarasimha Sastry has three sons, two daughters and a widow, without, any reason, Will has been executed in favour of his wife and daughter alone. Hence, the same constitutes suspicious circumstances and the same has not been dispelled by the propounders of the Will, Mere registration of the Will or the execution of the Will itself is not a proof for due execution. Unless the propounders of the Will are able to dispel all the suspicious circumstances and show that he was in a sound state of mind while executing the Will, the Will cannot be said to be proved, In the facts of this case, it is established that the testator was not in a sound state of mind and the Will Is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, which has not been dispelled by the propounder of the Will. In support of their case, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Baljinder Singh vs. Rattan Singh, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5666, where it has been held as under: “Will executed and registered not at place where testator usually visited and resided and attesting witness not known to testator and. Will not making any reference to real son of testator, the finding that execution of Will is suspicious is not liable to he interfered with.” They further placed reliance on the judgment in the case of S.R. Srinivasa and others vs. S. Padmavathamma, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 274 , where the Supreme Court held as under: “None of the attesting witnesses have been examined, The scribe, who was examined has not stated that he had. signed the Wilt with the intention to attest. In his evidence, he has merely slated that he was the scribe of the will. He even admitted that he could, not. remember the names of the witnesses to the will The test that the witness should have put his signature animo attestandi has not been satisfied. Therefore, the signature of the scribe could, not. be taken as proof of attestation. The execution of a will can be held, to have been proved, when the statutory requirements for proving the will are satisfied.” Further It was held that: “There is no convincing reason as to why they were excluded from the inheritance. The Will does not specify which of the properties have been bequeathed to, had been allotted to certain specific property. The Will is signed by I, even though she was the sole beneficiary under the Will. She was present in the office of the Sub-Registrar at. the time when the Will was registered.” In the facts of the said case, the Supreme Court held that Will is not proved. 23. Absolutely, there cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid propositions, In Baljinder Singh’s case the Will was not executed at a place where the testator-executant, resided and there was no reference to the son. In the instant case, the testator was a resident of Bangalore. The Will is executed, and registered in the Sub-Registrar office, Bangalore where here sided. 23. Absolutely, there cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid propositions, In Baljinder Singh’s case the Will was not executed at a place where the testator-executant, resided and there was no reference to the son. In the instant case, the testator was a resident of Bangalore. The Will is executed, and registered in the Sub-Registrar office, Bangalore where here sided. In the Will, he has set out in detail his marriage with the first wife and the son born to the first wife and his marriage with the second wife and four children born to the second wife. In the facts of this case, the said judgment has no application. 24. In Srinivasa’s case, both the attesting witnesses were not examined. Scribe of the Will who had not signed the Will, got examined. Hence it was held that it is not sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement. At least one attesting witness is required to be examined for proving the will. In the instant ease, one attesting witness has been examined and another attesting witness was not alive. Scribe was not alive. The law requires evidence of at least one attesting witness to prove a Will and that requirement has been complied with. Therefore, the aforesaid two judgments have no application to the facts of this case. 25. We have gone through the Will-Ex. D3, which is before us. As stated earlier, it is drafted by N. Narasimha Rao, an advocate. On the date of the Will, the executant was 81 years. The Will contains the clear description of the properties, which are the subject matter of bequest. Thereafter, It sets out the marriage of first wife and birth of a son to her. After the death of first, wife, he married to second wife and children born to her. Further it. also recites that the Ist defendant was educated by the executant and he also got. a good employment. in State Bank of Mysore and after his marriage, he was living separately from him. Similarly, he has performed the marriage of second daughter Indirarnma and she is living with her husband happily, It also refers to eldest daughter, the 3rd defendant and her husband with their son living with them. It also refers to the education given to the plaintiff and he being employed in a good job. Similarly, he has performed the marriage of second daughter Indirarnma and she is living with her husband happily, It also refers to eldest daughter, the 3rd defendant and her husband with their son living with them. It also refers to the education given to the plaintiff and he being employed in a good job. Further it refers to the executant getting him married to a good lady and that she was living with the 1st defendant. There is a specific recital by the father-executant that after doing all these, some how his sons are not showing love and affection towards him. In particular, the plaintiff is torturing his wife for one or the other reason. Therefore, he apprehends the interest of his wife is not safe in the hands of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Therefore, as their eldest daughter’s husband is living with them and taking care of them for the last more than 20 years, the executant believed that his wife, who is aged about 70 years, her interest could be protected by bequeathing his property in favour of his wife and after her death, the property could be passed on to his daughter. Therefore, in the Will, there is full reference to the family members, their conduct, the reason for excluding his other children from the bequest. The said Will is in Kannada and the executant has affixed his signature in Kannada at the end of each page. Signature is not disputed. In fact, his signature is also found at Ex. D2, the possession certificate issued to him by the office of the City Improvement Trust-Board, Bangalore dated 7.11.1955. The comparison of the signature of Puttanarasimha Sastry in the year 1955 to his signature in the year 1993, there is no marked difference between these two signatures, though the difference between these two documents is 38 years. It also indicates the mental capacity and the physical health of the executant. The said will is duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Basavaoagudi, Bangalore, where he has also affixed his signature and which is duly identified by the advocate. It is true that mere registration of a Will do not. in any way prove the due execution of the Will. The Will is not compulsorily required to be registered. The said will is duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Basavaoagudi, Bangalore, where he has also affixed his signature and which is duly identified by the advocate. It is true that mere registration of a Will do not. in any way prove the due execution of the Will. The Will is not compulsorily required to be registered. Mere registration gives no weight, to the Will, But a perusal of the Will shows that the executant has signed the said Will and his signature is not in dispute and it is duly attested by two witnesses and it is also registered in. a Sub-Registrar office. Certainly, it is not as easy for any Court to reject the said Will. Some weight has to be given to these facts which have happened in the normal course of human conduct, We have the evidence of D3, an attesting “witness, who has attested these documents. He has stated that in 1993 Sri. V.K. Srinivasan, the other attesting witness took him to the house of Puttanarasimha Sastry, wherein, one advocate by name Sri. Narasimha Rao had come and he had brought a typed Will with him. Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry read the Will and stated it to be correct, and signed in our presence. He and V.K. Srinivasan also signed the Will. Thereafter, Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry left, with Sri. Narasimha Rao for the purpose of registration of the Wilt. Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry was in a sound and well disposing state of mind and health, though was aged and capable of understanding the pros and cons of the matter. In fact he himself read the Will and signed the Will in our presence, In cross-examination, he further explained by saying that on 23.5.1993, Srinivasan took him to the house of Puttanarasimha Sastry. As on that day, he had affixed his signature in 5 to 6 documents as a witness. He reached Sri. Puttanarasimha Sastry’s house at 11.30 a.m. The house of Puttanarasimha Sastry is situated in 4th Cross, Hanumanthnagar. After they reached the house of Puttanarasimha Sastry, an advocate by name Narasimha Rao came half an hour thereafter. He brought a typed Will, In his presence, no doctor came and examined Puttanarasimha Sastry. Narasimha Rao explained the contents of the Will. In the Will Puttanarasimha Sastry has given his property to Sharadamma. After they reached the house of Puttanarasimha Sastry, an advocate by name Narasimha Rao came half an hour thereafter. He brought a typed Will, In his presence, no doctor came and examined Puttanarasimha Sastry. Narasimha Rao explained the contents of the Will. In the Will Puttanarasimha Sastry has given his property to Sharadamma. He did not enquire with the executant that, why he is giving his entire property to his daughter. He has denied the suggestion that the executant eye sight was not proper. He has also denied the suggestion that he was unable to read the paper. He did not enquire with Puttanarasimha Sastry any draft of the Will was prepared earlier. He has deposed that first Srinivasan affixed his signature. Therefore, he has affixed his signature. He did not go to the Sub-Registrar office. He is residing at Srinagar from 1993. The day on. which the executant executed the Will was a working day for him. I went to office at 11.30 a.m. as Srinivasan was his boss and, therefore, no permission was required. He has denied the suggestion that he did not see the executant affixing the signature to the Will. 26. This witness is a total stranger to the family. But. the suggestion put. to him. shows that, he was close to 3rd defendant and her husband Sathyanarayana. After execution of the Will at 11.30 a.m. the Will is presented for registration on the very same day and it is also not in dispute. The advocate who prepared the will has identified the signature of Puttanarasimha Sastry before the Sub-Registrar, As stated earlier, the signature of the executant gives an indication of his mental state as well as physical state as we do not see any marked difference between the signature which was affixed in 1993 compared to the signature which was affixed in 1955. It is contended that the evidence of D.W. 2 runs counter to the evidence of D.W. 3. It is pointed out. that she has deposed that her husband read the Will and it was in Kannada and on the day, he read the Will the doctor came and examined her husband. No witnesses were present at the time of execution of the Will. From this It was pointed out that this evidence runs counter to the evidence of D.W. 3. 27. that she has deposed that her husband read the Will and it was in Kannada and on the day, he read the Will the doctor came and examined her husband. No witnesses were present at the time of execution of the Will. From this It was pointed out that this evidence runs counter to the evidence of D.W. 3. 27. In the first place, the 2nd defendant was giving evidence at the age of 77 years and her evidence has to be read as a whole. She has stated that she do not know whether a draft of the Will was prepared. She has stated that she do not remember the time when Ex. D3 came to be executed and she do not. remember whether It was morning or evening. Neither the plaintiff nor the 1st defendant was present when the Will was executed. She has stated that she do not. remember who actually drafted the Will and she do not remember whether Ex. D3 was prepared by a lawyer or by a document writer and she do not know who actually Instructed in making of the Will. She has stated that her husband himself was the drafter of the Will. The Will was written in Kannada. She do not remember the name of attesting witness of Ex. D3. No witnesses of Ex. D3 were present when the Will, was written. She has stated that she do not remember the date, month and year when Ex. D3 was executed. When the Will, Ex. D3 was executed, no witnesses were present. She has stated that she do not know-why document Ex. D3 was not produced to the Court for the last years. 28. If we take the entire evidence of this aged lady, one thing is clear that she did not take any active part in the preparation and execution of the Will. Admittedly, the Will is in Kannada. It is not in dispute. It is prepared by an advocate and he brought the same to the house of Puttanarasimha Sastry. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of 2nd defendant, that no witnesses were present at the time of execution of the Will. The evidence of D.W. 3 cannot be disbelieved. It is not in dispute. It is prepared by an advocate and he brought the same to the house of Puttanarasimha Sastry. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of 2nd defendant, that no witnesses were present at the time of execution of the Will. The evidence of D.W. 3 cannot be disbelieved. Hence, the trial Court on careful scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Will is duly executed which finding is supported by legal evidence on record and cannot he found fault with. 29. In so far as Puttanarasimha Sastry excluding his three sons and daughter is concerned, the reasons are given in the Will itself. Even otherwise, when we look into the entire evidence on record, Puttanarasimha Sastry had three sons, he educated them, got them employment, and their marriages were performed. But in return., he gets nothing from them. The first son after marriage started living separately. May be he had a good reason that Puttanarasimha Sastry had taken 2nd wife, In so far as 1st defendant is concerned, he was educated in 1971, he got the employment in State Bank of Mysore in 1976. He got married with a employee of State Bank of Mysore and later, after the marriage, he left the house of his father Puttanarasimha Sastry and started to live separately and he did not turn back to look after his parents. Therefore, it is quite understandable that two educated persons with employment could not get adjusted with the aged parents. There is no evidence to show that till the death of Puttanarasimha Sastry, other members of the family contributed their earnings towards maintenance of the family or for acquisition of the property. In so far as plaintiff is concerned, he completed his SSLC and thereafter, he did Diploma in 1986 and thereafter, he got the job in HAL. 30. Thereafter, he got married. After the marriage, he did not live with his parents and started living separately. Some time thereafter, he lost his job and he went to Saudi Arabia in search of job and after he came back, he was forced to occupy the first floor premises constructed by his father where Puttanarasimha Sastry was imparting vedic education to his students. After the marriage, he did not live with his parents and started living separately. Some time thereafter, he lost his job and he went to Saudi Arabia in search of job and after he came back, he was forced to occupy the first floor premises constructed by his father where Puttanarasimha Sastry was imparting vedic education to his students. There is no evidence produced on record to show that he has contributed any thing towards family maintenance or towards acquisition of the schedule properties. They do not. even whisper what is the income they derive, what is the contribution they have made to the parents. There is a specific recital in the Will that the plaintiff was harassing his mother and that is what provoked late Puttanarasimha Sastry to protect the interest of his wife by creating a life interest in her name and thereafter, to pass on. to his eldest daughter who came back to their house to take care of them till their end, The evidence on record also shows that her husband was employed in defence and working at Hyderabad and later Orissa and thereafter, he was transferred to Bangalore and he lived in his in-laws house and took care of the in-laws. Therefore, the contention that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the propounders of the Will have not dispelled the suspicions circumstances Is without any substance. Satisfactory explanation is forth coining not only from the evidence by way of recital in the registered Will but also the evidence adduced before the Court below. Therefore, even though Puttanarasimha Sastry had three sons and a daughter, he bequeathed his properties to his wife and to his eldest daughter and the reason for the same and made out and the suspicious circumstances has been clearly dispelled by acceptable evidence. In so far as the mental state of executant is concerned, no doubt he was aged, But the fact remains he lived nearly 5 years after the execution of the document. Even if the plaintiffs evidence is to be accepted that his father lost memory, he had become senile and he had generated forgetfulness, both his sons have not state why they did not take care of his father and what is the treatment they got to their father. Even if the plaintiffs evidence is to be accepted that his father lost memory, he had become senile and he had generated forgetfulness, both his sons have not state why they did not take care of his father and what is the treatment they got to their father. From 1993 till 1998 for 5 years when he lived after execution of the Will, no medical records were produced for the same. Evidence on record shows that even though he was aged, he has not lost his sound state of mind, he has maintained a good health and at this juncture, he executed the Will. Therefore, seen from any angle, the trial Court on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record has held that the Will is proved, executant was in a sound state of mind on the date of execution of the Will and suspicious circumstances have been clearly dispelled by acceptable evidence on record, Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court do not suffer from any infirmity, which calls for interference. In the result, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.