Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 870
High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Minor Anantharaman, by next friend and Mother, V. Sellam (The Appellant declared as major discharging the next friend, his mother, V. Sellam vide C.M.P. No. 5242/1993, dt. 28.6.1993)
Versus
Mahalingam and others
S.A. No. 13 of 1990
Decided on: 17-06-2005
Mr. K. Kannan, Counsel for G.R. Swaminathan, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. K. Yamunan, Counsel for K. Thirugnanam, Advocate for Respondent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of a Will and the rights of parties under the French Code Civil, particularly regarding property disposition and the rights of bona fide purchasers, are crucial in determining the outcome of property disputes.
Headnote:
Will - Property Disposition - Code Civil (French) - Article 1048, Article 1069, Article 1070 - The court discussed the validity of the Will executed by the Testator entailing the property for more than three generations, the requirement of making the Will public, and the rights of bona fide purchasers under the French Code Civil. The court found that the Will contravened Article 1048 of Code Civil (French) and was not made public as required by Article 1069 and Article 1070. The defendants, who were bona fide purchasers for value, were protected under the Code Civil (French).
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his right and for possession of the suit property, claiming entitlement as the absolute owner based on a Will executed by the Testator. The defendants contested the validity of the Will and claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the Will.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding the Will to be valid and the alienation by the life estate holder to be ineffective. The first Appellate Court reversed the judgment, finding that the Will contravened Article 1048 of Code Civil (French) and was not made public as required by Article 1069 and Article 1070. The defendants were considered bona fide purchasers for value and their rights were protected.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the Will, compliance with the French Code Civil provisions, and the rights of the defendants as bona fide purchasers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Will contravened Article 1048 of Code Civil (French) and was not made public as required by Article 1069 and Article 1070. As a result, the defendants, being bona fide purchasers for value, were protected under the French Code Civil.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal in A.S. No. 47 of 1988.
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Pondichery at Karaikal in A.S. No. 47 of 1988 dated 1.9.1989 reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.7.1988 in O.S. No. 36 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikal. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the Appellant.
2. Case of the plaintiff is that the suit property in Survey No. 192/5, Patta No. 384 to an extent of 19 acres 5 ca in Soorakudi Village, originally belonged to one Periyanayagathammal, w/o Muthusamy Sasthirigal. Periyanayagathammal purchased the suit property and other properties through a Notarial Deed dated 16.9.1897. She was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till her death on 16.1.1935. After her death, her only heir Lakshmi Ammal became the owner of the property. On 4.11.1968, the said Lakshmi Ammal in a sound disposing state of mind executed her last Will and Testament before the Notaire Sundaramurthy. On the extension of Indian Registration Act to Pondicherry, the said Will was deposited with the Registrar at Karaikal by the said Notaire. Through the Will, Lakhsmi Ammal bequeathed her properties to the minor plaintiff and she had given the life estate to Rajaram Sastri, who pre deceased Lakshmi Ammal. After the life time of Rajaram Sastri, life estate was given to Muthu @ Vaithinathan, who is the father of the plaintiff. Muthu @ Vaithinathan also had no title to validly convey the property. While so, he sold some portions of the suit property under the Sale Deeds dated 6.5.1975 and 26.7.1975 to the defendants 1 and 2 and to the third defendant respectively. Since Muthu @ Vaithinathan was only a life estate holder, he had no valid right to convey the property. Hence, the minor plaintiff has sent Ex.A-4 notice to the defendants. Defendants have sent a reply notice containing false allegations. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his right and for possession.
3. Defendants 1 and 2 adopted the written statement filed by the third defendant. In their written statement, the defendants have set forth the defence denying the validity of the Will. As per the Will, the property has been first bequeathed in favour of Lakshmi Ammal’s son-in-law Rajaram Sastri and thereafter, it has to go to Muthu @ Vaithinathan. Since Rajaram Sastri pre-deceased Lakshmi Ammal on 11.5.1974, the Will of Lakhsmi Ammal became ineffective as early as on 11.5.1974. The procedure contemplated under the Code Civil (French) for the execution and registration of Will were not followed and hence, the Will is not valid. The Will is not in compliance with the French Code and the entailment of the property for more than two generations has no effect in the eye of law. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration and possession.
4. On the above pleadings, as many as nine issues have been framed. On the plaintiff’s side, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-12 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. B-1 to B-7 were marked. Ex.X-1 was also marked. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial Court answred the issue No. 1 finding that the impugned Will of Lakshmi Ammal is a valid document. The Defendant’s contention that the Will giving disposition for more than two generations is in violation of Article 1048 of the Code Civil (French) was rejected by the trial Court. It was held that Ex.A-11 Will (Ex.A-1) is one legally drawn and valid and the alienation by Muthu @ Vaithinathan would not bind the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the suit declining the claim of the defendants that the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit property and directing the defendants 1 to 4 to handover possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The Trial Court has directed the plaintiff to deposit the sale consideration of the sale deeds Exs. B-1 to B-3 to the credit of the suit to be payable to the Defendannts 1 to 3.
5. The Additional Distri
