In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.
Parties adduced their evidence.
The Trial Court framed the issues.
Out of the wedlock with first wifeSmt.
It was held that the plaintiff having failed to prove the original Will dated 12.03.1980, the suit must fail.
This suit was filed for partition of the properties owned by late Ramaiah Reddy.
The three defendants filed the written statement.
It was based on the Will dated 20.05.1995 said to have been executed by Ramaiah in favour of three parties to the suit.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbermerit in the appeal.
The High Court held that the plaintiff was able to prove the Will dated 12.03.1980 in accordance with law with the evidence adduced by her and hence she was entitled for a declaration as claimed by her in the suit relating to the suit properties.
This suit was for a declaration that the companypromise decree dated 25.01.1997 passed in OS No.7266 of 1996 is number binding on her that she is the lawful owner of the properties specified in the schedule on the basis of the Will dated 12.03.1980 executed by Ramaiah in her favour.
The family tree would be useful to appreciate the issues.
Hemavathi, one daughter Sharmila plaintiff and a son Umesh defendant No.1 were born, whereas out of the wedlock with second wife Nirmala, one son Rakesh Babu defendant No.3 was born.
2 and 3 felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court and filed this appeal by special leave in this Court.
They denied the Will dated 12.03.1980 set up by the plaintiff and supported the companypromise decree obtained by them on 25.01.1997 in O.S. No.7266 of 1996.
Defendant Nos.
The parties companypromised the suit and accordingly the companypromise decree was passed on 25.01.1997 without any companytest on merits.
Hemavathi Smt.
The Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 28.08.2008, dismissed the suit.
The dispute is essentially between the family members and it relates to certain immovable properties originally belonged to the Head of the family known as Ramaiah.
The plaintiff, felt aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit, filed first appeal before the High Court of Karnataka, out of which this appeal arises.
On 04.11.2000, Sharmila daughter from first wife filed a civil suit being OS No.7592 of 2000 in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore against Nirmala, Umesh and Rakesh Babu, out of which the present appeal arises.
On 11.10.1995, Umesh defendant No.1 filed a civil suit being O.S. No.7266 of 1996 against Nirmala and Rakesh Babu.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
H.V. Nirmala 1st wife died 24.2.89 2nd wife Defendant 2 R. Sharmila Rakesh Babu daughter Plaintiff son Defendant 3 Umesh son Defendant 1 Ramaiah Reddy had two wives, firstSmt.
Hemavathi the first wife died on 24.02.1989 and Ramaiah died on 26.11.1995.
Ramaiah Ramaiah Reddy died on 26.11.1995 Smt.
By the impugned judgment decree, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment decree of the Trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs suit.
The appellants are defendant Nos.
This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No.1128 of 2008 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the Date 2018.01.25 162224 IST Reason Trial Court and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
2 is defendant No.
1 in the civil suit, out of which this appeal arises.
2 and 3, whereas respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.
In other words, the Trial Court was of the view that it is number possible to hold, in the absence of sufficient evidence adduced by the plaintiff, that the Will dated 12.03.1980 is proved in accordance with law.
Hemavathi and the second Smt Nirmala.
