On 29th November, 1947, P.Eswar Rao executed a deed of family arrangement whereby properties bearing holding No.
It may be stated that during pendency of suit, defendant No.1 died in February, 1994 and as his first wife predeceased him, four daughters from her were impleaded as defendant Nos.
P.E.Sadasiva Rao had two marriages.
262 situate in Cavalry Road within the same city were jointly allotted to P.E.Sadasiva Rao defendant No.1 and his brother P.E.Panduranga Rao.
1 property was allotted to defendant No.1 whereas the other property was allotted to P.E.Panduranga Rao under a companypromise decree dated 22nd January, 1963 passed in OS No.
35 in Commercial Street in the city of Bangalore described as item number 1 in the Schedule and holding No.
Plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming 1/7th share in the properties described as item Nos.
No decree for partition was passed in relation to item No.
4 property as the same was number available for partition in view of the fact that prior to the date of filing of the suit, it had already been sold by defendant No.1 to one Smt.
2,3 and 4 properties were acquired, it also became the joint family property.
Subsequently, a suit was filed by P.E.Panduranga Rao in which a companypromise was arrived at and item No.
During trial, both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases and upon companyclusion of trial, the learned Civil Judge recorded findings that property described as item No.1 in the Schedule was a joint family property, business started therein by defendant No.1 was joint family business and as out of its income, item Nos.
The companyrt held that Section 6A of Hindu Succession Karnataka Amendment Act, 1990 hereinafter referred to as the Karnataka Amendment, which companyferred equal right to a daughter in companyparcenary property, was applicable in the present case, but defendant Nos.
The deed of family settlement dated 23rd February, 1978 was held to be invalid.
According to them, out of the income from the said business, defendant No.1 acquired other properties which are described as item Nos.
D.13 a to D.13 j and he attested the same and put is signature on the Will which was marked as Ext.
D.13 k .
From second wife Sumitra Bai defendant number 1 e , P.E.Sadasiva Rao had a son, namely, P.S. Sai Ram defendant number 2 besides three daughters, namely, Rekha defendant number 1 f , Mala defendant number 1 g and Prabha defendant number 1 h .
In the said suit, the defendants filed written statement companytesting the case of the plaintiff.
P.28 defendant number 1 put his LTM, but did number sign it.
1 e and 2 which was fabricated one.
DW.3 stated in his evidence that as Sadasiva Rao was diabetic patient and his hands were shivering, he did number sign the Will but put his LTM thereon.
According to them, item No.1 property was self acquisition of Eswar Rao and, companysequently, of defendant number 1, who, after raising funds from the market, started his separate business of tailoring in the said property with which the joint family had absolutely numberconnection whatsoever, more so when the joint family was neither possessed of any fund number any fund was at all invested in the said business by it at any point of time.
1 to 3 in the Schedule have been modified and it has been held that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 will be entitled to 11/30th share each in the properties described as item Nos.
Adilaxmi, who was number made party to the suit.
It was further directed that plaintiff was entitled to a decree for rendition of accounts in relation to business and the amount shall be ascertained at the time of passing of final decree.
In view of the aforesaid findings, the trial companyrt decreed suit for partition in relation to item Nos.
1, 2 and 3 properties in which it was directed that plaintiff was entitled to 1/8th share.
From other two marriages also, P.Eswar Rao had children and he acquired various properties during his life time which were his self acquisitions but the same were put in companymon hotchpotch.
Even on the Vakalatnama Ext.
He thereafter stated that other two attesting witnesses also put their signatures on the Will and he identified them which were marked as Exts.
Accordingly, deed of settlement dated 23rd February, 1978 and the Will dated 29th January, 1993 executed by defendant number 1 were genuine and valid and, companysequently, the plaintiff was number entitled to claim any share in the suit properties.
Further case of the plaintiff was that even though the suit properties belonged to joint family of defendant No.1 and his two sons, namely, the plaintiff and defendant No.2, defendant No.1 executed a deed of settlement on 23rd February, 1978 whereunder he settled item number 1 property in favour of defendant No.
56 of 1961.
1 a and 1 b , two of the daughters of defendant No.1 from his first wife, were number entitled to any share in the suit properties, they having married before the companying into force of the Karnataka Amendment.
1 to 4 in the Schedule and for rendition of accounts in relation to joint family business carried on by defendant number 1 in the name and style of M s Pissey and Sons and his case, in short, was that one P.Eswar Rao had three marriages and from the second marriage, he had two sons, namely, E.Sadasiva Rao defendant No.1 and P.E.Panduranga Rao.
D.13 l and D.13 m .
From his first wife Godavari Bai, he had a son S.Ramarao Pissey, who is the plaintiff, besides four daughters viz.,
D.13 p .
1 f to 1 h .
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
Challenging the decree of trial companyrt, two appeals were preferred, one by the plaintiff and another by defendant No.2 and his mother defendant No.1 e before the High Court of Karnataka.
DW.3 lastly stated that he was instructed to go to the Sub Registrars office two days after the execution of the Will where he presented himself before the Sub Registrar and there in his presence the testator put his LTM, which was marked as Ext.
2,3 and 4 in the Schedule and, therefore, the same are also his self acquisitions, companysequently, he had every right to deal with it.
1 a to 1 d , second wife as defendant No.1 e and three daughters from her as defendant Nos.
It was further held that the defendants failed to prove due execution of the Will.
P.Asha Devi defendant number 1 a , P.Jayalakshmi defendant number 1 b , P.S. Lalitha defendant number 1 c and P.S.Shantha defendant number 1 d .
As the parties were having difficulty in joint enjoyment of the properties, the same necessitated filing of the present suit.
1 to 3 in the Schedule and each of the seven daughters and widow of defendant number 1 shall be entitled to 1/30th share therein.
Thereafter, defendant No.2 obtained a Will executed by defendant No.1 on 29th January, 1993 bequeathing thereunder item No.3 property in favour of defendant number.
Thus, the reason assigned in the Will for the testators number signing it and putting his LTM is number only companyroborated by the evidence of DWs.1 and 3, but also by the fact that he put his LTM on the Vakalatnama Ext.
The testator, who died during the pendency of the suit, as stated above, was examined as DW.1 and in his evidence he had stated that because of nervous disability he was number in a position to put his signature on the Will.
2,3 and 4 properties.
D.13 n , and he attested the same and his signature was marked as Ext.
The witness then stated that the testator put his LTMs on each and every page of the Will in his presence which were marked as Exts.
Defendant No.1 started a joint family business of textiles and tailoring in a portion of item No.1 property and out of the income of the said business, he acquired item Nos.
As the plaintiff had filed a suit for partition against his father, who was the testator, there was numberhing unnatural in the testator bequeathing item number 3 property to his second wife, defendant number 1 e , creating life estate in her favour and thereafter to her son, defendant number 2.
N. AGRAWAL, J. In this appeal by special leave, appellants, who were defendant number.
1,2 and 3 in the Schedule appended to the plaint and thereby modifying the decree of the trial companyrt which directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to 1/8th share in the said properties.
1 e and 2, have assailed the judgment rendered by Karnataka High Court in appeals whereby it has been directed that plaintiff is entitled to 11/30th share in the properties described as item Nos.
