proof of will deed - whether the Plaintiff (Respondent No.1 herein) was able to prove the Will dated 12.03.1980 in accordance with law.= First, the Will dated 12.03.1980 is a registered Will. Second, it was executed by none other than the father-Ramaiah in favour of his minor daughter-Sharmila and minor Son-Umesh born from first wife. Third, when Ramaiah-the father bequeathed his property to his minor children then we find nothing unnatural in it. In our opinion, it is a natural bequeath out of love and affection. Fourth, there is no question of minor daughter and son playing an active role in execution of the Will dated 12.03.1980 in their favour. It is for the simple reason that both were too young to indulge in any kind of illegal acts to grab the suit property. In other words, it was too much to expect from the minor children to play any active role in grabbing their father's property and create forged Will. Fifth, it has come in the evidence that the original Will dated 12.03.1980 was not in possession of the plaintiff but it was in possession of defendant No.1. For this reason, the plaintiff filed its certified copy after obtaining from Registrar’s office. Sixth, this explanation was accepted by the High Court and, in our opinion, rightly. Seventh, since the original Will was not in plaintiff's possession, its existence and legality could be proved by the plaintiff by leading the secondary evidence. Eighth, the plaintiff proved the Will dated 12.03.1980 in accordance with the requirement of Section 68 of the Evidence Act,1872 by adducing her own evidence and by examining one attesting witness of the Will. In our view, such evidence was sufficient to prove the Will. Ninth, it is not in dispute that the later Will dated 20.05.1995 disclosed by the defendants did not find mention therein the fact of execution of first Will dated 12.03.1980 by the testator. In our view, the Will dated 20.05.1995 should have found reference of the earlier Will dated 12.03.1980 because Will dated 12.03.1980 was a registered Will and in order to prevail the last Will over the earlier one, the reference of revocation of the earlier Will dated 12.03.1980 was necessary in the later Will. It was not so. Tenth, since the plaintiff was not a party to the compromise decree dated 25.01.1997 passed in OS No.7266 of 1996, it was not binding on her. Lastly, once the Will dated 12.03.1980 is held proved, in accordance with law, the plaintiff becomes entitled to claim a declaration in her favour that she is the owner of the properties bequeathed to her by the testator as specified in the Will.

1
 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 881 OF 2018
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.7470 of 2012]
H.V. Nirmala & Anr. .. Appellants
Versus
R. Sharmila & Anr. .. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. 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
whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the
Trial Court and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
2
3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the
appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts
hereinbelow.
4. The appellants are defendant Nos. 2 and 3,
whereas respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and
respondent No. 2 is defendant No. 1 in the civil suit,
out of which this appeal arises.
5. 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 family tree would be
useful to appreciate the issues.
Ramaiah @ Ramaiah Reddy (died on 26.11.1995)
_______________|_________________
 | |
 Smt. Hemavathi Smt. H.V. Nirmala
 (1st wife died : 24.2.89) (2nd wife) Defendant 2
 | |
 (i) R. Sharmila Rakesh Babu
 (daughter – Plaintiff) & (son – Defendant 3)

 (ii) Umesh (son – Defendant 1)
3
6. Ramaiah Reddy had two wives, first–Smt.
Hemavathi and the second-Smt Nirmala. Out of the
wedlock with first wife–Smt. 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. Hemavathi-the
first wife died on 24.02.1989 and Ramaiah died on
26.11.1995.
7. On 11.10.1995, Umesh (defendant No.1) filed a
civil suit being O.S. No.7266 of 1996 against Nirmala
and Rakesh Babu. This suit was filed for partition of
the properties owned by late Ramaiah Reddy. 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.
4
8. The parties compromised the suit and
accordingly the compromise decree was passed on
25.01.1997 without any contest on merits.
9. 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. This suit was for a declaration that the
compromise decree dated 25.01.1997 passed in OS
No.7266 of 1996 is not 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.
10. The three defendants filed the written
statement. They denied the Will dated 12.03.1980 set
up by the plaintiff and supported the compromise
decree obtained by them on 25.01.1997 in O.S.
No.7266 of 1996. The Trial Court framed the issues.
5
Parties adduced their evidence. The Trial Court, by
its judgment and order dated 28.08.2008, dismissed
the suit. It was held that the plaintiff having failed to
prove the original Will dated 12.03.1980, the suit
must fail. In other words, the Trial Court was of the
view that it is not 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.
11. 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.
12. By the impugned judgment/decree, the High
Court allowed the appeal, set aside the
judgment/decree of the Trial Court and decreed the
plaintiff's suit. 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
6
her and hence she was entitled for a declaration as
claimed by her in the suit relating to the suit
properties. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 felt aggrieved by
the impugned judgment of the High Court and filed
this appeal by special leave in this Court.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no
merit in the appeal. In our view, the High Court
appears to be right in its reasoning and the
conclusion.
14. The fate of this appeal depends upon one
question, namely, whether the Plaintiff (Respondent
No.1 herein) was able to prove the Will dated
12.03.1980 in accordance with law.
15. As mentioned above, the Trial Court decided the
question against the plaintiff whereas the first
Appellate Court decided the question in plaintiff's
favour.
7
16. Having examined, we are inclined to concur
with the reasoning of the High Court and accordingly
answer the question in favour of respondent No.1,
i.e., the plaintiff and against the appellants
(defendant Nos. 2 and 3). In other words, we hold
that the plaintiff was able to prove the Will dated
12.03.1980 in accordance with law and there is no
reason to hold otherwise. This we say for the
following reasons.
17. First, the Will dated 12.03.1980 is a registered
Will. Second, it was executed by none other than the
father-Ramaiah in favour of his minor
daughter-Sharmila and minor Son-Umesh born from
first wife. Third, when Ramaiah-the father
bequeathed his property to his minor children then
we find nothing unnatural in it. In our opinion, it is
a natural bequeath out of love and affection. Fourth,
there is no question of minor daughter and son
8
playing an active role in execution of the Will dated
12.03.1980 in their favour. It is for the simple reason
that both were too young to indulge in any kind of
illegal acts to grab the suit property. In other words,
it was too much to expect from the minor children to
play any active role in grabbing their father's property
and create forged Will. Fifth, it has come in the
evidence that the original Will dated 12.03.1980 was
not in possession of the plaintiff but it was in
possession of defendant No.1. For this reason, the
plaintiff filed its certified copy after obtaining from
Registrar’s office. Sixth, this explanation was
accepted by the High Court and, in our opinion,
rightly. Seventh, since the original Will was not in
plaintiff's possession, its existence and legality could
be proved by the plaintiff by leading the secondary
evidence. Eighth, the plaintiff proved the Will dated
12.03.1980 in accordance with the requirement of
9
Section 68 of the Evidence Act,1872 by adducing her
own evidence and by examining one attesting witness
of the Will. In our view, such evidence was sufficient
to prove the Will. Ninth, it is not in dispute that the
later Will dated 20.05.1995 disclosed by the
defendants did not find mention therein the fact of
execution of first Will dated 12.03.1980 by the
testator. In our view, the Will dated 20.05.1995
should have found reference of the earlier Will dated
12.03.1980 because Will dated 12.03.1980 was a
registered Will and in order to prevail the last Will
over the earlier one, the reference of revocation of the
earlier Will dated 12.03.1980 was necessary in the
later Will. It was not so. Tenth, since the plaintiff
was not a party to the compromise decree dated
25.01.1997 passed in OS No.7266 of 1996, it was not
binding on her. Lastly, once the Will dated
12.03.1980 is held proved, in accordance with law,
10
the plaintiff becomes entitled to claim a declaration
in her favour that she is the owner of the properties
bequeathed to her by the testator as specified in the
Will.
18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold
that the High Court was right in holding that the
plaintiff was able to prove the Will dated 12.03.1980
and that the Will dated 20.05.1995 and the decree
dated 25.01.1997 passed in O.S. No.7266 of 1996 are
not binding on the plaintiff.
19. As a consequence thereof, we find no merit in
this appeal, which fails and is accordingly dismissed.
………………………………..J
(R.K. AGRAWAL)
 ..………………………………J.
 (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)
New Delhi,
January 25, 2018