Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 510
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Soundhararajan – Appellant
Versus
M. Dhanachakravarthi (died) & Others – Respondent
A.S.(MD) No. 86 of 2012
Decided On : 09-02-2021
For the Appellant :S. Balamurugan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, died, R2 to R8, No Appearance, R9 to R12, S. Meenakshi Sundaram, Senior Counsel, C. Jeyaprakash, Advocate.
The burden of proof is on the person asserting that a particular property is joint family property to prove the same. Similarly, the propounder of a Will has the burden to prove the due execution and attestation of the Will, and to dispel any suspicious circumstances attached to the Will.
Headnote:
HINDU GAINS OF LEARNING ACT, 1930 - SUCCESSION - JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - WILL - SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - BURDEN OF PROOF - PRESUMPTION - REGISTRATION OF WILL - EXECUTION AND ATTESTATION - MENTAL CAPACITY OF TESTATOR - DISINHERITANCE - VALID REASONS - LEGAL HEIRS - EXCLUSION FROM INHERITANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the brother of the first defendant and one Manoharan, filed a suit for partition and other reliefs, claiming that the suit properties were joint family properties. The first defendant remained unmarried and contributed her entire salary for the purchase of properties in the name of Manoharan. The plaintiff and the first defendant decided to reside along with Manoharan and contributed funds for the purchase of the properties. The suit properties were purchased by Manoharan in his name, but they were joint family properties. The second defendant, the cousin of Manoharan, claimed ownership of the properties based on a registered Will executed by Manoharan in her favor. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the Will, alleging suspicious circumstances and lack of mental capacity of the testator.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit properties were joint family properties, purchased from the income of the joint family and buildings were put up from the contribution made by the plaintiff. The court found that the second defendant failed to prove that the properties were acquired by Manoharan substantially by means of his learning or skill, as per the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930. The court also held that the Wills propounded by the second and 11th defendants were not genuine and were shrouded with suspicious circumstances, including the mental state of the testator, the exclusion of legal heirs without valid reasons, and the involvement of beneficiaries in the preparation of the Wills. The court further held that the plaintiff and the defendants 12 to 14, as Class-II legal heirs of Manoharan, were entitled to succeed the properties.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff, first defendant, and their brother Manoharan? 2. Whether the suit properties are the exclusive properties of Dr. Manoharan, as per the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930? 3. Whether the Will dated 21.06.2002 executed by one Manoharan in favor of the second defendant is true and valid or attached with suspicious circumstances? 4. Whether the Will dated 01.11.2007 executed by the third defendant in favor of the 11th defendant is true and valid or attached with suspicious circumstances? 5. What reliefs the parties are entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The presumption is that all properties are divided, and the person alleging the contrary should prove that all properties are not divided. 2. There is a presumption against blending self-acquired property with joint family properties. 3. A person who alleges that a particular property is joint family property has to prove the same. 4. Any property purchased by a person out of his skill and learning is his separate property. 5. A legal heir can be excluded from inheritance for valid reasons, and the testator can execute a Will in favor of a person who takes care of him. 6. The reason for disinheriting a person need not be stated in the Will and can be gathered from extrinsic evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal suit was dismissed, and the plaintiff and the defendants 12 to 14 were held entitled to succeed the properties left by the deceased Manoharan.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2012, made in O.S. No.4 of 2005 on the file of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul.)
1. As against the finding of the Trial Court, this appeal has been filed by the 11th defendant in OS.No.4 of 2005, against the judgment and decree, dated 18.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul.
2. The brief facts, leading to file the appeal suit, are as follows:
The Plaintiff is the brother of the first defendant and one Manoharan, Doctor by profession. All of them born to Munusamy and Yasodammal. The said Munusamy was in Army and he died on 22.07.1948, leaving behind his wife Yasodammal and his three children, namely, the plaintiff, first defendant and one Manoharan. After the death of Munusamy, Yasodammal was eking out livelihood with the help of the parents house at Vellore and her brother, namely Duraisamy, purchased the properties measuring to an extent of 1 acre 61 cents with well therein, on 02.05.1960, in the name of Yasodammal. The said Yasodammal derived income from the above properties and also by mortgaging the properties, educate her children, namely, plaintiff, first defendant and one Manoharan. In the year 1973, the first defendant joined as a Junior Assistant in Vellore Electricity Department. Thereafter, transferred to Chennai and Manoharan has also imparted education by the plaintiff and his mother, he became a Doctor on 01.09.1975. He worked as a Doctor for three years at Chennai and stayed with the plaintiff and the first defendant.
3. The first defendant remained unmarried only in order to help the said Manoharan and she has contributed her entire salary for the purchase of properties in the name of Manoharan. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the first defendant decided to reside along with Manoharan and contributed the funds for the purchase of the properties. Accordingly, the suit properties were purchased by Manoharan in his name. Though the properties are purchased in his name, those properties are joint family properties. Thereafter, in the year 1998, the properties of mother situated at Vellore was sold for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and the said amount was given to Manoharan to develop the properties. Out of the said amount, Manoharan has constructed a house and a marriage hall in the name of his mother Yasodammal. The construction was completed in the year 2001. The entire buildings were put up from the contribution made by the plaintiff from the sale amount of Mother's properties. Manoharan met with an accident on 21.05.2000 and suffered fracture, head injury and lost his conscious. The plaintiff has also spent huge amount towards the medical expenses. After such accident, the plaintiff has also paid a personal amount for completing the building. It is also stated in the pleadings that mother Yasodammal died on 29.01.1997. Even after the accident, Manoharan fell down in the bathroom on 01.01.2002. Thereafter, he was not able to look after himself, at the time the second defendant, the cousin of Manoharan was appointed to do house hold duties and the said Manoharan died in the year 04.10.2004, without executing any Will. The last rites was performed by the plaintiff's son Arun. After the death of Manoharan, who remained unmarried, the properties devolved upon the plaintiff and the first defendant jointly and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The second defendant has created a false document and attempted to obtain necessary name transfer in the Revenue and Municipal records.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the second defendant died on 12.10.2007, leaving behind his mother, the third defendant as legal heir. The third defendant also died on 01.08.2008, leaving behind the defendants 4 to 11 as legal heirs. The plaintiff died and his children Defendants 12 to 14 were impleaded as legal heirs.
