Back
1925 Supreme(SC) 31
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD SUMNER, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND LORD SALVESEN.
KONDAPALLI VIJAYARATNAM - Appellant
Versus
MANDAPAKA SUDARSANA RAO (DEFENDANTS) - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : June. 11. 1925.
Solicitors for appellants:Barrow, Rogers & Nevill. Solicitor for respondents: H. S. L. Polak.
A document invalid as a will due to the executant's minority cannot be treated as a "will" for registration purposes. If it confers an authority to adopt, it must be registered as such within the statutory period; otherwise, the authority is ineffectual.
Headnote:(A) Indian Registration Act, 1877 - Sections 17, 23, 40 and 41 - Authority to adopt - Registration - A document executed by a minor, which is invalid as a will, cannot be treated as a "will" for the purpose of registration exemptions - If the document is not a valid will, it must be registered as an authority to adopt within the statutory period of four months from execution - Failure to register within the prescribed time renders the authority to adopt ineffectual.
(B) Act IX of 1875 - Sections 2 and 3 - Capacity of a minor - A minor under guardianship attains majority at twenty-one years - A person who has not attained the age of majority is incapable of executing a valid will, although they may have the legal capacity to confer an authority to adopt.
Facts of the case:
A person, aged nineteen and under guardianship, executed a document purporting to be a will and conferring a power of adoption on his widow. The document was registered as a will. The executant was a minor under the law governing guardianship and thus incapable of making a will. The widow subsequently exercised the power of adoption based on this document.
Findings of Court:
The document was a nullity as a will because the executant had not attained the age of majority. Consequently, it could not be treated as a "will" for the purposes of the registration laws. As an authority to adopt, it required registration within four months of execution, which did not occur.
Issues: Whether a document that is invalid as a will due to the minority of the executant can still be considered a "will" for the purposes of the Indian Registration Act, thereby exempting it from the four-month registration requirement for authorities to adopt.
Ratio Decidendi: A document that has no legal effect as a will because the executant lacked the capacity to make one is a nullity and cannot be termed a "will" for any other purpose, including registration. While the executant may have had the capacity to confer an authority to adopt, such authority must comply with the registration requirements of the Indian Registration Act. Since the document was not registered as an authority to adopt within the prescribed four-month period, the subsequent adoption was invalid.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
adoption
- authority to adopt
-
adoption
-
property law
-
succession
- testamentary capacity
-
succession
-
practice and procedure
-
registration
- indian registration act
-
registration
Judgement
Appeal (No. 62 of 1923) from a decree of the High Court (April 16, 1920) affirming a decree of the District Judge of Ganjam.
The suit was instituted by the appellants, who prayed by their plaint (1.) for a declaration that the will of Mandapaka Appanna was void, (2.) that the adoption of the first defendant was illegal and invalid, and for other relief.
The question arising upon the present appeal was whether an authority to adopt conferred by a will, which was invalid but was registered as a will, was ineffectual for want of due registration as an authority to adopt.
2 Law. Rep. 52 Ind. App. 305 ( 1924- 1925) Kondapalli Vijayaratnam V. Mandapaka Sudarsana Rao
83
The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The District Judge dismissed the suit; upon the question raised in the present appeal he said "Where a document is honestly believed by all parties concerned to be a will and is registered as such, I am inclined to think that the registration should be considered sufficient for the authority to adopt contained in the document."
Upon appeal to the High Court the decision was affirmed. The learned judges (Wallis C.J. and Moore J.) were of opinion that the document, even if invalid as a will on account of the minority of the executant, satisfied the definition of a "will" in the General Clauses Act, 1897, s. 3, sub-s. 57, and was therefore a " will" for the purposes of the Indian Registration Act, and that accordingly the authority to adopt was one " conferred by a will" within s. 17 of that Act, and so was not one to which ss. 40 and 41 applied.
1925. Hyam and B. N. Srivastava for the appellants. ^The document being invalid as a will, the authority to adopt was not one "conferred by a will" within s. 17 of the Indian Registration Act; the Act did not say, as it might have done, "a document purporting to be a will." The strictness with which the requirements of the Act should be enforced and the limited operation of s. 87 appear from Mujibunnissa v. Abdul Rahim (( 1900) L. R. 281. A. 15.) ; Jambu Parshad v. Muhammad Aftab Ali Khan (( 1914) L. R. 421. A. 22.) ; and Jagannatha Bheema Deo v. Kunja Behari Deo . (( 1921) L. R. 48 I. A. 482.) If the authority to adopt is effective it might be exercised in a manner conflicting with the intention appearing by the inoperative will.
W. Ingram for the first and third respondents relied upon the view of the High Court and upon s. 87 of the Act.
June 11. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD SALVESEN. The circumstances out of which this suit has arisen, so far as they are material to the judgment, may be very shortly stated.
One Mandapaka Appanna, a Sudra in the Ganjam district, who was possessed of a considerable amount of property, died in 1906, leaving a widow and two daughters, the latter being the plaintiffs in the action. When on his deathbed and within an hour or two of his actual death he executed a document, which purported to be a disposition of his pro perty, and at the same time conferred a power of adoption on his widow. This document was registered as a will at the instance of a legatee. It was challenged by the plaintiffs (who are still in minority) on the ground among others (1.) that it was not genuine and (2.) assuming that the signature which it bore to be that of the deceased, that he was incapable at the time of understanding its contents owing to the illness from which he shortly afterwards died.
Both Courts have decided, although with much hesitation, that the will was genuine, and on the question whether the deceased was in a fit condition to dispose of his property, the Subordinate Judge held that he was, and the High Court of Judicature at Madras may be presumed to have indorsed his judgment, although they have not expressly dealt with this matter in their reasons. Whether it is competent in these circumstances for their Lordships Board to entertain an appeal from what may be represented as concurrent judgments on questi
