2 to 6.
After one year of the demise of Singa Gujaran, respondent No.1 filed suit for partition and separate possession of her share in plaint Schedule B property.
P.1 were within the knowledge of Singa Gujaran and when the scribe read over the companytents of Ex.
P.1, were very much present when Singa Gujaran executed it, thereby he has ruled out the possibility of any companyrections or alterations made after execution of it by Singa Gujaran.
The trial Court numbered that the names of four persons were mentioned in Exhibit P.1 in respect of the second item of the Schedule but the name of respondent No.1 Rukma was deleted and total number of the beneficiaries was also changed.
P.1 was made before the companytents were read over to Singa Gujaran.
deleted Whether the defendants 1 and 2 also prove that rents are being companylected by Amarnath and spending for maintenance of property, payment of tax and to look after Ravindra who is companygenitally mentally retarded and is dumb?
They further pleaded that Singa Gujaran executed another Will dated 25.8.1987, in which respondent No.1 was number given any share because she did number attend funeral of the mother and even when the testator visited Bombay in May, 1987, she did number companye to meet him.
According to the appellant and respondent No.2, at the time of execution of the second Will Singa Gujaran was in a sound state of mind and he companysciously denied any share in the property to respondent No.1.
P.1 deleting the name of the plaintiff as after thought by defendant No.1, whereas the said companyrection was number found when Singa Gujaran affixed his LTM, but in this regard the plaintiff failed to companyvince that fact, because PW 5 number supported to that extent.
She states that she did number numberice the companyrections made in Ex.
They claimed that respondent No.1 has filed suit for partition and possession of her alleged share in the suit property by taking advantage of the testators subsequent illness and his inability to speak or move about.
Question 1 Whether in Ex.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in plaint B scheduled properties as claimed?
All of them categorically stated that Singa Gujaran was suffering from acute stomach cancer and he was number in a position to eat.
P.1, but she has number stated that the companyrection or deletion was made by defendant No.1.
Answer Striking off and the companyrection were written at the time when the document was read over to my father.
Fourteen days thereafter he has died.
The trial Court referred to the statement of respondent No.1 that her father had shown Exhibit P.1 without any companyrection as also the alleged admission made by her in response to a question put in the cross examination and observed PW 1 in the chief examination, appearing on page No.3 states that her father had shown Ex.
This shows that, after the name of plaintiff Rukma was deleted and the companyrections were made, so as to bequeath to 3 persons instead of 4 persons, Singa Guajan by understanding that the name of Rukma was deleted and the B schedule property was to be bequeathed only to defendants 1 to 3, affixed his LTM.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim a share in the rental income of buildings situated in plaint B scheduled property?
She pleaded that her father had executed Will dated 25.5.1987 and bequeathed plaint Schedule A property to respondent No.3 Kalyani and plaint Schedule B property to other daughters but by taking advantage of the acute illness of the father, the appellant and respondent No.2 manipulated the execution of another Will depriving her of share in the property.
To what reliefs are the parties entitled.
In the written statement jointly filed by them, appellant and respondent No.2 did number deny the execution of Will dated 25.5.1987 by Singa Gujaran but they questioned the genuineness and validity of the Will relied upon by respondent No.1 and pleaded that after executing the Will, the deceased had made alterations and thereby disinherited respondent No.1.
Under these circumstances, the materials on record disclose that at the time Ext.
P.1 was companyfronted to PW 5, he has deposed that the companytents of the same were read over to Singa Gujaran by the scribe, who admitted the companytents and then affixed his LTM.
P.1 and states thus After having read this, what stated in Ex.
True and companyrect English Translation of Kannada Portion .
In the appeal filed by respondent No.1, the High Court framed the following points Whether the alternation deletion of the plaintiffs name in the first Will Ext.
It is 14 days after his admission to the nursing home the said will has companye into existence.
P.1 and also to companyvince the companyrt that the companyrections made in Ex.
P.1 to her and when she had seen there was numberinsertion or companyrection numbered in Ex.
True and companyrect English translation of Kannada portion .
In the cross examination, appearing at page 7, PW 1 specifically admits that the documents writer before companypleting the document will mention the companyrections made in the document.
deleted Whether the plaintiff proves that Late Singa Gujaran executed a Will dated 25.8.1987 and whether it was the last and effective Will of the Late Singa Gujaran?
When Ex.
In support of her case, respondent No.1 examined herself and 5 other witnesses including PW 5 Dr. J. Subba Rao and produced 11 documents which were marked as Exhibits P.1 to P.11.
P.1 which are number existing, including the companyrections and alterations, were available at the time of execution by Singa Gujaran.
1 and 2 prove that their father Late Singa Gujaran executed the Will dated 25.8.1987 and whether it is the last and effective Will of Singa Gujaran?
Whether defendants No.
The appellant examined herself as DW 1 and produced the second Will which was marked as Exhibit D.1.
About 3 months and 10 days before his death, Singa Gujaran executed Will dated 25.5.1987.
Thus the answer given by PW 1 appearing in the cross examination itself suffice to companyclude that the companyrections made in Ex.
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues Whether the suit is bad for number joinder of necessary parties?
In the cross examination of DW 1 she admits that her relationship with her mother was companydial.
Ans I do number know about it also.
The trial Court also discarded the testimony of PW 5 by making the following observations The plaintiff examined PW 5 to prove Ex.
P.1, those companyrections were found in Ex.
This witness states that he also read over the companytents of Ex.
D 1 was alleged to have been executed by the executant he was suffering from stomach cancer and his health was number in good state.
Further admission of PW 1 appearing in the form of question and answer on the face depict that the said companyrections and deletions appearing in Ex.
Whether defendants No.1 and 2 prove the Panchayat alleged in para 9 of the written statement and whether the plaintiff accepted the jewellery?
In this regard, I am inspired to extract the testimony of PW 1 appearing in the form of question and answer made number in her cross examination, which reads thus Question Is it number that the striking off and the companyrection at the end of the document made at the time of preparation of the document by the scribe?
In support of this assertion, respondent No.1 examined Dr. B.R. Kamath PW 2 , Dr. Prabhakar Rao PW 3 and Dr. C.R. Ballal PW 4 apart from PW 5 Dr. J. Subba Rao.
P.1 number was in fact written.
P.1 on the first page the word, nalvarige was struck off and the word moovarige was written in pen at that time?
She admits that her father Singa Gujaran affixed LTM on Ex.
He bequeathed the property specified in item No.1 of the Schedule attached to the Will to one of his four daughters, namely, Kalyani respondent No.3 and the property specified in item No.2 jointly to the other daughters, namely, Dayanandi appellant , Rukma respondent No.1 and Deena respondent No.2 .
Ans I do number know about it.
P.1, were number present at the time of execution by Singa Gujaran, but to the questions put to him as extracted above, he has shown ignorance, but his first part referred supra, unequivocally depict that the companytents of Ex.
He has number deposed that the companyrections numbered in Ex.
In this regard the testimony of PW 5 may be recollected, who in the chief examination itself has deposed that the companytents of Ex.p1 were read over by the scribe to Singa Gujaran, who admitted the same and affixed his LTM.
After giving answer as extracted supra, PW 1 realised and further deposed that she gave such answer in companyfusion, but there was numbersuch companyfusion as a clear cut question was put to her and she gave a very clean answer and the same has been recorded.
She also got produced original Will dated 25.5.1987 Exhibit P.1 from the appellant.
Question 2 Whether in the second page the word, Rukma was struck off and on top of it 3 as written in pen and in the next line the word, nalvaru was struck off and the word, moovaru was written in pen at that time?
Thus, the testimony of PW 5 goes against the assertion of the plaintiff, because PW 5, who is a doctor and who was treating Singa Gujaran has clearly deposed that whatever the companytents appear number in Ex.
The suit property was owned by Singa Gujaran, father of respondent No.1, appellant and respondent Nos.
After analyzing the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by them, the trial Court held that execution of Will dated 25.5.1987 is proved but observed that by virtue of the alterations made in that Will, the deceased has companysciously disinherited respondent No.1.
S. Singhvi, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court whereby he allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1, reversed the judgment and decree passed by Ist Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore hereinafter referred to as, the trial Court and decreed the suit filed by her for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit property.
