Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Veena Verma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Snigdha Sinha & Ors. - Respondents
F.A. No. 103 of 2011 With F.A. No. 188 of 2008 With M. A. No.320 of 2008
Decided On : 03-05-2024
PROBATE - PARTITION AND SUCCESSION - Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Sections 30, 6; Evidence Act, Section 68 - The court analyzed the validity of a will executed by Onkar Prasad Verma concerning ancestral property. It emphasized that a probate court's jurisdiction is limited to determining the validity of a will, not the title of the property. The court interpreted Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, allowing testamentary disposition of a coparcener's share, and Section 6, which grants daughters equal rights in joint family property. The court concluded that the will was ineffective due to a subsequent family arrangement that altered property rights, leading to the dismissal of the probate application and the decree of partition in favor of the plaintiffs.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, sons of Onkar Prasad Verma from his first wife, filed a partition suit for the division of joint family properties, while the defendant, his second wife, contested the validity of a will executed by Onkar Prasad Verma in her favor. The partition suit and the probate application were heard together, resulting in the partition suit being decreed and the probate application being rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the will was invalid as it pertained to ancestral property, which Onkar Prasad Verma could not dispose of through a will. The court also noted that the probate court erred in considering the title of the property, which was beyond its jurisdiction. The court upheld the unity of title and possession regarding the ancestral property and decreed the partition in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: 1. Can a probate application be rejected on the grounds that the subject matter of the will was ancestral property? 2. Can a will be granted probate if the testator entered into a family arrangement after executing the will? 3. Were the daughters of Onkar Prasad Verma excluded from receiving a share in the partition of joint family property?
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a will concerning ancestral property is not valid as the testator lacks the exclusive right to dispose of such property. It clarified that the probate court's role is limited to determining the validity of the will, not the title of the property. The court also reinforced the equal rights of daughters in joint family property under the amended Hindu Succession Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the probate application and decreed the partition suit, awarding each heir a 1/7th share in the joint family properties.
JUDGMENT :
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. Respondents/Plaintiffs, the sons of Onkar Prasad Verma from his first wife, filed Partition Suit No. 166 of 2000 for division of joint family properties of Onkar Prasad Verma, impleading Smt. Veena Verma (appellant /Defendant No.1) second wife of Onkar Prasad Verma.
2. Smt. Veena Verma had earlier filed Probate Case no.156 of 1999, for probate of ‘WILL’ executed by her husband Late Onkar Prasad Verma against her three step sons. The probate application was contested and it was converted into Title Suit No. 1 of 2003.
3. Partition Suit No.166 of 2000 and Title Suit No.01 of 2003 were heard together and have been disposed of by common Judgment, wherein the partition suit has been decreed, whereas the application for probate was rejected.
4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of partition, F.A. No.188 of 2008 has been filed and against dismissal of probate application, M.A. No. 320 of 2008 has been preferred by Smt. Veena Verma.
5. F.A. No.103 of 2011 has been filed against the final decree drawn in partition suit no.166 of 2000 dated 24.05.2011 (decree signed on 19.07.2011) passed by learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court VI, Ranchi in Partition Suit No.166 of 2000.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF(S)
6. Plaintiffs are the three sons of Onkar Prasad Verma from his first wife [Yashoda Devi], whereas defendant No.1 is second wife and defendant Nos. 2 is the son, 3 and 4 are daughters of Onkar Prasad Verma. These facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the schedule property as detailed in the plaint were ancestral property of Onkar Prasad Verma as he acquired the same by way of partition from his nephew Triloki Prasad Verma.
7. It has however been pleaded on behalf of the defendants in Title Suit No. 1 of 2003/ Probate Case No. 156 of 1999 that schedule-I property comprising of a building and vacant land standing within MS Plot No. 1367, Holding no. 330 corresponding to new holding No. 1217 measuring 12 Kathas situated at Shraddhanand Road, P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi had acquired character of the self-acquired property by lapse of time.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS
8. The specific case of the defendants is that there was no unity of title and possession over MS Plot No. 1367 at Ranchi. The main contention of the defendant(s) is that with respect to the urban property which is situated at Shraddhanand Road, Ranchi, detailed above, Onkar Prasad Verma had executed a WILL on 27.11.1987 in favour of Veena Verma (defendant No.1) and by virtue of said WILL, she had acquired right, title and interest over the said property.
9. The factum of unity and title as well as possession with respect to other schedule property has not been expressly denied in the written statement.
ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT
10. The judgment and decree passed in partition Suit No. 166 of 2000 as well as in Probate Case No. 156 of 1999 / Title Suit No. 1 of 2003 is assailed mainly on the ground that learned trial Court below misdirected itself by clubbing both the title partition suit as well as probate title suit in one judgment. The jurisdiction of a Probate court is limited to determine validity of WILL, and not the title of the property which is sought to be disposed of by the said WILL.
11. In support of the WILL, the defendant No.1/Probate applicant had adduced into evidence, the registered WILL as well as one witness out of two attesting witnesses namely Jitendra Nath (PW3). The learned court below has not assigned any reason in the judgment to disbelieve the testimony of the attesting witness. The only ground on which the probate application has been dismissed is that the testator had no right to dispose of the ancestral property.
12. In this regard, it is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into account the provisions of Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, under which coparceners of the Joint Hindu Family have right, inter alia, for testamentary dispossession of J
A will concerning ancestral property is invalid as the testator cannot dispose of such property through testamentary means, and daughters have equal rights in joint family property under the Hindu Su....
The court affirmed that ancestral property remains so despite partition, and daughters are entitled to equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless prior partition is established, there shall be a presumption that the property is joint family property, and a family arrangement in th....
Daughters have equal rights and shares in ancestral joint family properties under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Title suit – Once constitution of coparcenary changes by birth or death, shares have to be worked out at the time of actual partition – Shares will have to be determined in changed scenario.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
