A predecessor’s specific pleading admission cannot be displaced by heirs’ inconsistent genealogy.

The plaintiffs, Balakka and her daughter Lakshmakka, sued for declaration of title to the suit properties and permanent injunction, asserting that the defendant had no right in them.

Huliyappa, Balakka’s husband, claimed that he and Balakka derived title under a Will dated 10 November 1947 made by his father-in-law, Chikkaramaiah; alternatively, he claimed title by adverse possession.

The trial court decreed the suit in favour of Balakka, and the first appellate court affirmed that decree.

Huliyappa’s legal representatives appealed under Section 100 CPC. During the appeal, they relied on a genealogy portraying Huliyappa as a descendant of the common propositus, Kenchappa, whereas Huliyappa’s written statement had traced his claim to the Will from Chikkaramaiah.

1. Whether the trial court and first appellate court were justified in granting a declaration of title to Balakka alone, in light of the asserted co-ownership of Ramakka and Huliyappa.

2. Whether the courts below erred in appreciating the parties’ relationship.

The appeal was brought under Section 100 CPC, and the court considered whether the substantial questions of law warranted interference with concurrent findings.

A party claiming title under a Will must establish the testamentary disposition relied upon; here, the court noted that the original defendant had not produced or proved the alleged Will.

The court also treated the original defendant’s specific pleading as significant: the later genealogy advanced by his legal representatives could not displace his own pleaded basis of title.

No further statutory provision or precedent was cited in the judgment.

Huliyappa’s written statement acknowledged that the properties belonged to Chikkaramaiah and claimed that Huliyappa and Balakka received them under the 1947 Will. Because the Will was neither produced nor proved, that asserted source of title was not established; the alternative claim of adverse possession had also been rejected concurrently by both courts.

The later genealogy relied on by the appellants was inconsistent with Huliyappa’s own pleading and did not establish an independent claim through Kenchappa. The High Court therefore found no basis to disturb the concurrent findings.

Finding no ground to interfere with the concurrent judgments, it dismissed the second appeal.