JUDGMENT : (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed impugning the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2015 passed in OS.No.29/2011 instituted by plaintiff - Smt. Leelavathi T.R. herein respondent No.1 in the present appeal seeking a partition of the suit schedule properties (39 in number). One Rajashekharaiah married Rudranamma and Sarvanamma, two real sisters. The plaintiff is the daughter born through second wife of Rajashekharaiah named Smt. Sarvanamma, who is defendant No.1 in this suit. Two sons and one daughter namely T.R. Shivaprakash, T.R. Divakara and Smt. T.R. Rathnakumari, were born from the first wife namely Smt. Rudranamma. The Rajashekharaiah died in the year 1960. Smt. Rudranamma had died around 10 years prior to institution of the suit by the plaintiff. The father of Smt. Rudranamma and Smt. Sarvanamma was Mr. Nanjappa Shetty. Mr. Nanjappa Shetty had registered a gift deed in favour of his two daughters namely Smt. Rudranamma and Smt. Sarvanamma in respect of the suit schedule in Item Nos.1 to 7, 9 to 12 and 14 and 15. The registered gift deed is dated 21.08.1962 marked as Ex-D20. 2. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule properties in Item Nos.17 to 19 are the ancestral property of late Rajashekharaiah. The defendants have unequivocally said that they had no objection of the said properties being partitioned between all the legal heirs of late Rajashekharaiah. 3. The suit schedule properties in Item Nos.8, 13 and 16 were acquired jointly by Late Rudranamma and Smt. Sarvanamma by the registered sale deed dated 22.09.1966 (EX-D21). A registered partition between Smt. Rudranamma and Smt. Sarvanamma and two sons of Smt. Rudranamma, namely T.R. Shivaprakash and T.R. Divakara took place on 27.11.1978 (Ex-P53) in respect of the properties acquired by Smt. Rudranamma and Smt. Sarvanamma, through registered gift deed and registered sale deed (Ex-D20 and D21). Smt. Rudranamma and Smt. Sarvanamma had also executed a registered Will dated 27.11.1978 bequeathing all their properties in favour of T.R. Shivaprakash and T.R. Divakara. The registered Will and the registered partition deed in the same month i.e., 24.09.1978 and 27.09.1978, respectively. 4. The trial Court after considering the pleadings between the parties had framed following issues for determination: "1. Whether plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of her and the defendants? The registered Will and the registered partition deed in the same month i.e., 24.09.1978 and 27.09.1978, respectively. 4. The trial Court after considering the pleadings between the parties had framed following issues for determination: "1. Whether plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of her and the defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5 th share in all the suit schedule properties? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the registered partition deeds dated:24-11-1978 and 05-02-1999 are not binding on her share? 4. What is the annual income of the suit schedule properties? 5. Who is liable to render account in respect of suit schedule properties? 6. What order or decree? 5. The dispute is only in respect of the suit schedule properties i.e., Item Nos.1 to 16. As mentioned above, the suit schedule properties in Item Nos.1 to 7, 9 to 12 and 14 and 15 had been acquired jointly by Smt. Rudranamma and Smt. Saravanamma from their father through a registered gift deed dated 21.08.1962 (Ex-D20). The registered sale deed and registered gift deed are not in dispute. The trial Court has not recorded any findings regarding the legality or otherwise of the registered gift deed (Ex-D20) and registered sale deed (Ex-D21). Once the suit schedule properties in Item Nos.1 to 7, 9 to 12 and 14 and 15 were gifted by late Nanjappa Shetty in favour of his daughters, through registered gift deed, those properties became the self-acquired property of Smt. Rudranamma and Smt. Sarvanamma and they were entitled to dispose of these properties as per their choice. Insofar as the suit schedule properties in Item Nos.8, 13 and 16 are concerned, there is no dispute that they were acquired jointly by Smt. Rudranamma and Smt. Saravanamma through registered sale deed dated 22.09.1966 (Ex-D21) and therefore, these properties are also the self-acquired properties of Smt. Rudranamma and Smt. Saravanamma and they were entitled to deal with these properties as per their choice. 6. The plaintiff has not disputed these documents, their genuineness, legality or otherwise and therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that these properties are also joint family properties is not correct. 7. 6. The plaintiff has not disputed these documents, their genuineness, legality or otherwise and therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that these properties are also joint family properties is not correct. 7. It is submitted that despite the gift deed and the registered sale deed, it was mentioned in the partition deed dated 24.11.1978 (Ex.P53) that these properties were joint family properties, therefore, the Trial Court was right in its conclusion that these properties were joint family properties. 8. It cannot be held on the basis of mere a mention in the partition deed that these properties will not acquire the joint family properties to treat these properties as joint family properties in negation of the registered gift deed and registered sale deed as these properties were the self-acquired properties of Smt. Rudranamma and Smt. Sarvanamma, as mentioned above, by gift deed and sale deed. The registered documents are not in dispute. 9. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had not only partitioned all the properties in favour of two sons of late Smt. Rudranamma, but also had registered Will dated 27.11.1978 (Ex-D22), whereby, these two ladies had bequeath all their properties in favour of the two sons of Smt. Rudranamma. In fact the Will was produced in the trial and Smt. Sarvanamma, who was alive had stepped into the witness box and said that she had put her signature on the Will and she stood by the contents of the Will. She had further said in examination-in-chief that the plaintiff, who was the only daughter of Smt. Sarvanamma had already taken all her shares in cash and gold and therefore, she decided to bequeath her share in the self-acquired property in favour of the two sons of Smt. Rudranamma. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff - respondent has taken us through the cross-examination of DW1, wherein at one place she had said that she had signed the Will at the instance of T.R. Shivaprakash and T.R. Divakar. No question was put to the said witness that whether she signed the Will under coercion or undue influence. This is not the case of the plaintiff that the Will was executed under said coercion or undue influence or by fraud. No question was put to the said witness that whether she signed the Will under coercion or undue influence. This is not the case of the plaintiff that the Will was executed under said coercion or undue influence or by fraud. So when the executant herself stepped into the witness box and supported the execution of the Will, there is no requirement of any attesting witness being examined in as much as the Will would come into force after her demise and not before that. If the probate is sought for in the Will, then only the attesting witness examination would be required and not otherwise. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff - respondent that as the attesting witness was not examined, the Will was not proved. We may make it clear that Will was nothing but a supporting evidence to suggest that these are the properties, which were acquired through gift deed and sale deed and were the self acquired properties of two ladies namely Smt. Rudranamma and Smt. Sarvanamma, who have executed partition deed dividing all these properties in favour of the two sons of Smt. Rudranamma. In addition they have also executed a Will in Ex-D22, which document was proved by none other than Smt. Sarvanamma. 11. At last, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant - plaintiff has submitted that instead of 1/5 th share in the suit schedule properties in Item Nos. 19 to 39, the plaintiff is the only legal heir of Smt. Sarvanamma and therefore, the share of Smt. Sarvanamma would devolve on the plaintiff after demise of Smt. Sarvanamma. The Trial Court has allowed the suit for partition in respect of the suit schedule properties in Item Nos.19 to 39 and held that the plaintiff would be entitled for 1/5 th share in suit schedule property in Item Nos.19 to 39. Instead of 1/5 th share, the plaintiff would be entitled for 2/6 th share, as there are 6 co-parceners of the estate of the late Rajashekaraiah. 12. The learned counsel for the defendant / appellant does not have any objection for giving 2/6 th share to the plaintiff. Therefore, we modify the impugned judgment and decree and order that the plaintiff/respondent shall be entitled for 2/6 th share in suit schedule properties in Item Nos.19 to 39. 13. 12. The learned counsel for the defendant / appellant does not have any objection for giving 2/6 th share to the plaintiff. Therefore, we modify the impugned judgment and decree and order that the plaintiff/respondent shall be entitled for 2/6 th share in suit schedule properties in Item Nos.19 to 39. 13. Accordingly, with the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. Registry to draw the modified decree.