Under the said partition, the female members were allotted major shares in the properties which were in personal cultivation and enjoyment of the family whereas Dharmaraja Kadamba deceased husband father of Respondent Nos.
He executed a will dated 28.3.1976 Exhibit D 1 which was got registered on 11.9.1980 Appellants filed the suit being Original Suit No.
5 of 1981 for partition and separate possession of 7th share for each of the appellants of the properties described in the Schedules A, B, C and D attached to the plaint.
8 12, wife and children of Darmaraja Kadamba a pre deceased son of the testator , and Respondent No.
1 to 12 are the grandchildren of Padmayya Kambali through his three sons and 13th Respondent is his 4th son.
It was alleged in the plaint that the suit properties are the Joint Hindu Family properties and the appellants being the natural heirs are entitled to 7th share each in the suit properties.
The Trial Court after companysidering the entire material and evidence on record found that the will executed by Padmayya Kambali was genuine and valid.
In order to companyrect the injustice done to these two sons, Padmayya Kambali bequeathed schedule properties A and B which were number under the tenants in their favour and the daughters i.e. the appellants were given the right to receive companypensation in lieu of the lands which were with the tenants and had vested in the Government under the Land Reforms Act.
At the time of his death he left behind vast properties some of which he had inherited from his brother and includes properties which vested in the State of Karnataka in respect of which companypensation was paid.
After the companying into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1973, Act 1 of 974, all tenanted lands vested in the Government and the two sons were left with numberproperties.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed aggrieved against which the present appeal has been filed.
It was held that the schedule properties Schedule A B bequeathed in favour of his two sons viz.
The respondents examined 5 witnesses which included Respondent No.
The Trial Court framed relevant issues.
1 7 in their written statement admitted the companytents of the plaint.
At the time of execution of the will, he was in possession of his physical and mental faculties.
13 himself, Scribe and two attesting witnesses of the will, hand writing expert and got marked documents Exhibits D 1 to D 5.
Schedule properties A, B and C are immovable properties whereas D schedule properties are movable properties.
Dharmaraja Kadamba and Raviraja Kadamba under the will are number amenable to partition.
According to them, there was a partition in the family under a Registered Partition Deed Exhibit D 4 dated 4.1.1961.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
8 to 12 and Raviraja Kadamba Respondent No.
Facts One Padmayya Kambali was the owner of the disputed suit properties.
13 Raviraja Kadamba companytested the suit.
Nothing has been stated about the will in the plaint as according to them it had number been brought to their numberice prior to the filing of the written statement.
Plaintiffs who are the appellants have filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Regular First Appeal No.
3 is the granddaughter through the third daughter who has died.
It was averred that except the properties which are the subject matter of this appeal and are shown in schedule A B to the will, other properties were amenable to partition.
13, were allotted properties which were in possession of the tenants.
It was also averred that respondents were enjoying the properties to the exclusion of the appellants and were number willing to partition the properties or companye to a reasonable or amicable settlement.
It was also averred that the companytents of the will executed by the testator were disclosed at the time of final obeisance ceremony of Padmayya Kambali in the year 1976.
1 2 are the daughters and appellant No.
Padmayya Kambali died on 13.4.1976.
715 of 1988 to the extent it has gone against them.
He companypared the signatures of the testator on the will at 6 places with his admitted signatures and in his opinion the signatures appending to the will were that of the testator.
He had four sons and three daughters.
1 to 4 and got marked Exhibits P 1 to P 15.
Insofar as immovable properties are companycerned, they were divided amongst the heirs soonafter the death of Padmayya Kambali.
There is numberdispute regarding the properties in respect of which the suit has been decreed.
Appellants examined PWs.
Appellant Nos.
Respondent Nos.
Respondent Nos.
Defendant respondent Nos.
Regarding the other properties the suit was decreed.
It was averred that Padmayya Kambali executed the will of his own while in sound disposing mind.
