Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.
Smt. Gowramma, W/o Late Sri R. Nagaraju and ors. - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Padmamma, D/o Late Sri Rangappa and ors. – Respondents
Regular First Appeal No.19 of 2013 C/W Writ Petition No.35239 of 2013 (GMCPC)
Decided On : 27-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri R.B. Sadasivappa, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Shantha Reddy, Advocate for Sri L.S. Venkatakrishna, Advocate, Sri N.V. Vasantha, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Will executed by late L.Rangappa was a void bequest as being in violation of 'Rule against perpetuity' as contained in Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Headnote:
Will - Partition - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 114, Section 83, Section 84, Section 87 - The court held that the Will executed by late L.Rangappa was a void bequest as being in violation of 'Rule against perpetuity' as contained in Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court also discussed the principles under Section 83, Section 84, and Section 87 of the Indian Succession Act and their applicability to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, children of late R. Nagaraju, filed a suit for partition of properties acquired by late L. Rangappa, governed by 'Mithakshara law', and sought to set aside sale deeds executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favor of defendant No.5. The trial Court held that the beneficiaries of the Will are entitled to inherit the property under the law of succession, without reference to the Will, as the Will offends the 'Rule against perpetuity'. The trial Court also rejected the claim with respect to schedule 'C' property consisting of jewelry by holding that no evidence was forthcoming as regards such claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will executed by late L.Rangappa was a void bequest as being in violation of 'Rule against perpetuity' as contained in Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court also discussed the principles under Section 83, Section 84, and Section 87 of the Indian Succession Act and their applicability to the case. The court set aside the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs were strangers and could not have claimed partition during the life time of Class1 heirs and held that the valuation made by the plaintiffs for joint possession was in order. The court also held that the claim of the plaintiffs with respect to schedule 'B' property during the life time of defendant No.2 was not maintainable and that the claim with respect to schedule 'C' property was not proved.
Issues: The issues before the court were: (a) Whether the Will executed by late L.Rangappa was a void bequest as being in violation of 'Rule against perpetuity' as contained in Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925? (b) Whether the finding that valuation is to be made under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, is sustainable? (c) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as regards 'B' and 'C' schedule properties?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Will executed by late L.Rangappa was a void bequest as being in violation of 'Rule against perpetuity' as contained in Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court also discussed the principles under Section 83, Section 84, and Section 87 of the Indian Succession Act and their applicability to the case. The court set aside the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs were strangers and could not have claimed partition during the life time of Class1 heirs and held that the valuation made by the plaintiffs for joint possession was in order. The court also held that the claim of the plaintiffs with respect to schedule 'B' property during the life time of defendant No.2 was not maintainable and that the claim with respect to schedule 'C' property was not proved.
Final Decision: The court held that the Will executed by late L.Rangappa was a void bequest as being in violation of 'Rule against perpetuity' as contained in Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court also set aside the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs were strangers and could not have claimed partition during the life time of Class1 heirs and held that the valuation made by the plaintiffs for joint possession was in order. The court also held that the claim of the plaintiffs with respect to schedule 'B' property during the life time of defendant No.2 was not maintainable and that the claim with respect to schedule 'C' property was not proved.
JUDGMENT :
The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit in O.S.No.2201/1995.
2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiffs who are children of late R. Nagaraju, the son of late L.Rangappa have filed a suit for declaration that they are entitled for partition to an extent of one-fourth share in schedule ‘A’ property, one-half share each out of schedule ‘B’ property and one-half share in schedule ‘C’ property and seek for a decree to put them in possession with respect to their shares. Further, a declaration is sought that sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4, viz., wife and children of late L.Rangappa in favour of defendant No.5 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also sought for an order of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of second floor of schedule ‘A’ property.
4. It is stated that late L.Rangappa had acquired the schedule properties and was residing alongwith his children as a Hindu undivided joint family governed by ‘Mithakshara law’. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 who have been arrayed in the suit are the wife and children of late L.Rangappa. Defendant No.5M/s.Gokul Promoters Pvt. Ltd., represented by Sri M.R.R.Setty is the purchaser of the property transferred by defendant Nos.1 to 4.
5. It is stated that said late L.Rangappa alongwith his son R.Nagaraju had constructed schedule ‘A’ property consisting of ground, first and second floor and while the ground floor has been let out on rent, the second floor was in occupation of the family of late L.Rangappa. The first floor is stated to have been let out on rent to various tenants.
6. Late L. Rangappa had executed a Will on 30.08.1980 bequeathing rights amongst his wife, sons and daughters equally with a condition to share proportionate rent, though without any right to alienate or encumber the properties. It is stated that L.Rangappa had died on 01.10.1983 and thereupon succession to the properties was as prescribed in the Will.
7. It is stated that schedule ‘A’ property was sold to the tenant, i.e. defendant No.5, who was residing in the ground floor of schedule ‘A’ property, by sale deeds dated 24.02.1995 and 25.02.1995 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4.
8. The plaintiffs contending that sale deeds were not binding upon them, as sale transactions were in violation of conditions imposed under the Will insofar as the grandchildren were conferred with rights and the children of late L.Rangappa possessed only limited rights, have sought to set aside the sale deeds.
9. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed their written statement. While admitting that defendant No.1, i.e. wife of late L.Rangappa was collecting the rents after the demise of late L.Rangappa, it was contended that the Will has been rendered inconsequential, as all the legatees under the Will who are the ultimate beneficiaries were entitled to decide as to how the property is to be dealt with and have executed the sale deeds. It is further contended that defendant No.2, who is the father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 is entitled to bind the interests of minor children.
10. The defendant No.5 had filed written statement reiterating the contentions of defendant Nos.1 to 4 as made out in the written statement. It is averred that the Khatha has been transferred into the name of defendant No.5 and that notices of attornment have been issued to the tenants in the ground and first floor. It is contended that the Will is not an impediment for the legal representatives of late L.Rangappa to execute the sale deed and that he is a bona fide purchaser for value.
11. The plaintiffs have led evidence through PW1 to PW3 and marked documents as Exhibits-P1 to P9, while the defendants have led evidence through DW1 and marked the documents as Exhibits D1 to D8.
12. The trial Court has interpreted the Will and the conditions imposed in the Will and while observing that th
