1994 Supreme(Kar) 314
Karnataka High Court
PARVATHI - Appellant
Versus
DAJI RAMU GHATAGE - Respondent
Decided On : 11-09-94
R.F.A. : 573 of 1994
Ashok Kalyan Shetty
A suit for declaration can only be filed by a person having existing right or interest in the property and not on the basis of spes-successionis.
Headnote:
spes-successionis - Property Rights - Order 32 Rule 15, Hindu Law Section 30 - The court discussed the maintainability of a suit filed by a person claiming spes-successionis in her own name during the lifetime of the transferor. The court emphasized that a suit for declaration can only be filed by a person having existing right or interest in the property and not on the basis of spes-successionis. The court referred to Order 32 Rule 15 and Hindu Law Section 30 to support its decision. The court also cited legal principles from previous cases to highlight that no suit is maintainable when the plaintiff asserts no right in himself except spes-successionis.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of certain deeds as illegal and not binding on her, claiming spes-successionis as the daughter of the transferor. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that it cannot be filed by a person who has no right, title, and interest in the property during the lifetime of the transferor simply on the basis of spes-successionis.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not maintainable as it was filed by a person who had no existing right or interest in the property and not in accordance with the requirements of law.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the suit filed on the basis of spes-successionis during the lifetime of the transferor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suit for declaration can only be filed by a person having existing right or interest in the property and not on the basis of spes-successionis. The court emphasized the requirements of Order 32 Rule 15 and cited legal principles from previous cases to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court.
( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated 15-4-1994. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking declaration of certain deeds i. e. , sale deeds, gift deeds and the like which are mentioned in Schedule-A to the plaint and are alleged to have been executed by defendant-respondent 1 are illegal, unlawful and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellant claimed herself to be the daughter of defendant/respondent-1 and filed the above suit for declaration on the basis of spes-successionis.
( 2 ) THE trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit of this nature cannot be filed by a person who has got no right, title and interest in the property involved during the lifetime of the transferor simply on the basis of spes-successionis. The trial court took the view that the suit on the basis of spes-successionis cannot be filed during the lifetime of the transferor by the prospective heirs and particularly when defendant No. 1 the transferor admits to have executed the deeds. Feeling aggrieved from the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff-appellant has filed this 1st appeal.
( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted before me that he had filed the "suit on the ground that defendant-1 (respondent-1) had lost his mental capacity and he was the person of unsound mind. The trial court recorded a finding against the plaintiff-appellant in this matter. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant very fairly submitted that plaintiff-appellant filed the suit on the ground that plaintiff appellant's right to succeed the property will be affected and she is likely to be adversely affected if the deeds are not cancelled. That at present the transferor, who is the father is alive, but it is stated that the transferor was of unsound mind and the court below recorded the incorrect finding in that regard. I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Suit for declaration of some right or for declaration can be filed by a person having the right or interest in the property or having such status or character, as he seeks to be declared and it is only when a person establishes his right, title and interest in the property he may get the decree. Until he has got some existing right or interest in the property, he is not entitled to institute the suit for declaration and particularly a suit of the nature, of the present one. Defendant 1 the transferor who had been owner of the property, and after whose death the plaintiff may succeed and claim any right or title in the property in dispute, is very much alive even now, and he has admitted the execution of deeds in suit. If the deeds have been obtained by playing fraud or mis-representation on transferor by the transferee, then it is and has been open for the transferor to seek for cancellation thereof by filing suit for decree for cancellation in his own name and if he-the transferor happens to be a minor or person of unsound mind, then suit could be filed by or in the name of minor or the person of unsound mind through his or her next friend.
( 4 ) AS regards the question of filing of a suit on behalf of persons of unsound mind, provisions of Order 32, Rule 15 provide the procedure and the manner in which such a suit is to be filed. Order 32, Rule 15 reads as under:"rules 1 to 14 (except Rule 2-A) to apply to persons of unsound mind. Rules 1 to 14 (except Rule 2-A) shall, so far as may be, apply to persons adjudged before or during the pendency of the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to persons who, though not so adjudged, are found by the court on enquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued. "
( 5 ) ACCORDING to Rule 15 of Order 32, the Rules 1 to 14 excepting Rule 2-A will apply in the matter of filing the suit by or against the persons of unsound mind. Rule 1 of Order 32, reads as under: "minor to sue by n