1. Suit for share in joint family properties — validity of a registered Will — application of Section 30, Hindu Succession Act, 1956. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 57
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
Radhamma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
H.N. Muddukrishna & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7092 of 2010
Decided On : 23-01-2019
Advocates Appeared:
Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR, Mr. Harisha S.R., Adv., for the Appellant.
Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR, Mr. Harisha S.R., Adv., for the Appellant.
IMPORATNT POINT
A coparcener can dispose of his undivided share in Mitakshara joint family property by Will or any testamentary disposition.
Headnote:(a) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 30 – A coparcener can dispose of his undivided share in Mitakshara joint family property by Will or any testamentary disposition. (Para 6)
(b) Property law – Inheritance – Member of joint family – Do not have independent share – Instantly plaintiffs could get a share only by devolution of undivided share of the testator on his death – However, the testator having disposed of his share by Will, no further independent share could be claimed by the appellants in the ancestral properties as a member of the family. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit on 16.1.1976 for 1/10th share in the suit properties described in the schedule to the plaint as ‘A’ to ‘H’. The learned trial Court decreed the suit declaring that the second plaintiff (since first plaintiff died on 7.7.1978 leaving behind daughter) Smt. Nagamma is entitled for 1/10th share of joint family properties in the plaint which are scheduled properties ‘A’ to ‘E’ and the properties in the plaint scheduled ‘F’ & ‘G’ were held to be the self-acquired properties of the testator, and property ‘H’ was declared as the exclusive property of the Smt. K.C. Saroja. The judgment and decree of the trial Court came to be challenged in the regular first appeal before the High Court by the present appellants in RFA No. 347/1998 and RFA No. 922/2001 was filed by the defendants-respondents against the self-same impugned judgment. The High Court after hearing the parties and on reappraisal of the evidence while affirming the finding of fact in reference to the registered Will Exhibit-D2 dated 16.6.1962 of the testator held that the respondents have established the due execution of the Will as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. But while answering the question in reference to the 1/10th share of the plaintiff no.2 in the undivided share of the testator in the joint family properties schedule ‘A’ to ‘E’, took note of Section 30 read with explanation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and held that a coparcener derives a right to dispose of his undivided share in Mitakshara joint family property by “Will” or any testamentary disposition i.e. by virtue of law and accordingly reversed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court holding 1/10th share of the appellants/plaintiffs in the schedule of the properties referred in ‘A’ to ‘E’.
Finding of the Court:
The testator could dispose of his share in undivided property by Will.
No further independent share could be claimed by the appellants in the ancestral properties as a member of the family.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- Legal Principle: A coparcener can dispose of their undivided share in Mitakshara joint family property by Will or any testamentary disposition. (!) (!) (!)
- Statutory Basis: This right is derived from Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, read with its Explanation, which deems the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara co-parcenary property as capable of being disposed of by him. (!) (!) (!)
- Effect of Will: Since the testator disposed of his share via a valid Will, no further independent share can be claimed by the appellants in the ancestral properties as members of the family; their share would have devolved on the testator's death. (!) (!) (!)
- Validity of Will: The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent finding of fact that the Will was duly executed under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, despite suspicious circumstances raised by the appellants regarding the timing and the testator's health. (!) (!) (!)
- Property Classification: The court affirmed that properties scheduled 'A' to 'E' belong to the joint family, properties 'F' and 'G' are self-acquired by the testator, and property 'H' is the exclusive property of Smt. K.C. Saroja. (!) (!) (!)
- Outcome: The appeal filed against the High Court's judgment was dismissed, upholding the High Court's reversal of the trial court's decree regarding the 1/10th share claim. (!) (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to Will's execution based on suspicious circumstances — contention that independent family member shares cannot be divested by a testator's Will. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Concurrent findings on property nature and Will execution upheld — Section 30, Hindu Succession Act permits testamentary disposition of undivided coparcenary interest. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a male Hindu coparcener is legally entitled to dispose of his undivided Mitakshara coparcenary interest by Will. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed. (Para 9 )
6. Can a Hindu coparcener dispose of their undivided interest in Mitakshara joint family property via a Will?
Yes. Under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a male Hindu coparcener has the legal right to dispose of his undivided share in Mitakshara joint family property through a Will or other testamentary disposition. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. How did the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, alter the rules regarding the testamentary disposition of coparcenary interest?
Prior to the Act, a coparcener could not dispose of their undivided coparcenary interest by Will. Section 30 relaxed this rule, specifically permitting such testamentary dispositions notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law. (Para 6 , 7 )
8. Can a family member claim an independent share in joint family property that is immune to a coparcener's testamentary disposition?
No. If the claimant's interest is derived from the undivided share of a coparcener, that interest is divested if the coparcener legally bequeaths their share via a Will under Section 30 of the Act. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT :
Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dismissing RFA No. 347/1998 holding that the appellants are not entitled to claim any share in the joint family properties. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit on 16.1.1976 for 1/10th share in the suit properties described in the schedule to the plaint as ‘A’ to ‘H’. The learned trial Court decreed the suit declaring that the second plaintiff (since first plaintiff died on 7.7.1978 leaving behind daughter) Smt. Nagamma is entitled for 1/10th share of joint family properties in the plaint which are scheduled properties ‘A’ to ‘E’ and the properties in the plaint scheduled ‘F’ & ‘G’ were held to be the self-acquired properties of the testator, and property ‘H’ was declared as the exclusive property of the Smt. K.C. Saroja. The judgment and decree of the trial Court came to be challenged in the regular first appeal before the High Court by the present appellants in RFA No. 347/1998 and RFA No. 922/2001 was filed by the defendants-respondents against the self-same impugned judgment. The High Court after hearing the parties and on reappraisal of the evidence while affirming the finding of fact in reference to the registered Will Exhibit-D2 dated 16.6.1962 of the testator held that the respondents have established the due execution of the Will as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. But while answering the question in reference to the 1/10th share of the plaintiff no.2 in the undivided share of the testator in the joint family properties schedule ‘A’ to ‘E’, took note of Section 30 read with explanation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and held that a coparcener derives a right to dispose of his undivided share in Mitakshara joint family property by “Will” or any testamentary disposition i.e. by virtue of law and accordingly reversed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court holding 1/10th share of the appellants/plaintiffs in the schedule of the properties referred in ‘A’ to ‘E’.
2. Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned counsel for the appellants has tried to persuade this Court that the finding which has been recorded in reference to execution of the Will of the testator Exhibit-D2 dated 16.6.1962 appears to be suspicious for the reasons that the testator Patel Hanume Gowda died on 6.2.1965 and the registered Will Exhibit-D2 dated 16.6.1962 has not seen the light of the day until filing of the suit by the present appellants/plaintiffs on 16.1.1976 and the testator was unwell during the period the Exhibit-D2 was scribed and further submitted that there appears no reason/justification for the testator to have a complete exclusion of one branch of the family i.e. the daughter from his second marriage from the schedule of properties of the testator falling in schedule ‘A’ to ‘H’ which indisputedly was either the joint family property or the self-acquired property of the testator.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that even if the testator could have bequeathed his share in the undivided joint family properties through a registered Will dated 16.6.1962 still the independent share of the appellants/plaintiffs as a member of the family in the joint family properties could not have been divested and that is an apparent error which has been committed by the High Court and needs interference of this Court.
4. None appeared for the respondents despite service.
5. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants and with his assistance perused the record and we find no error in the concurrent finding of fact as recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the High Court holding the properties schedule ‘A’ to ‘E’ belong to joint family properties and property ‘F’ & ‘G’ are self-acquired properties of the testator and property schedule ‘H’ was exclusively of Smt. K.C. Saroja. The suspicious circumstances highlighted by the appellants with reference to the Will Exhibit-D2 dated 16.6.1962, a concurrent find
