Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
P. Radha @ Radhakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
Irudayadoss & Others - Respondent
S.A(MD) Nos. 589 to 591 of 2020 & C.M.P(MD) Nos. 6295, 6296, 6314, 6316, 6318 & 6319 of 2020
Decided On : 01-03-2022
Property - Partition - Hindu Succession Act - [Section 15 (2)(b), Section 8] - [Exhibit A.1, Exhibit A.2, Exhibit A.4] - The court discussed the character of property inherited under Section 15 (2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, the validity of settlement deed and Will, and the applicability of Section 68 and Section 70 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court held that the property inherited under Section 15 (2)(b) is absolute property, not coparcenary property, and the settlement deed and Will were valid. The court also ruled that the admission of the Will by the testator in a previous suit was sufficient proof under Section 70 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of his half share in the suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the District Judge reversed the judgment and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court through second appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the property inherited under Section 15 (2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act is absolute property, not coparcenary property. It also found the settlement deed and Will to be valid, and the admission of the Will by the testator in a previous suit was sufficient proof under Section 70 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Issues: The issues included the character of property inherited under Section 15 (2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, the validity of settlement deed and Will, and the applicability of Section 68 and Section 70 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that property inherited under Section 15 (2)(b) is absolute property, not coparcenary property, and the settlement deed and Will were valid. It also held that the admission of the Will by the testator in a previous suit was sufficient proof under Section 70 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.5 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Court, Madurai, dated, 13.04.2018, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.88 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, dated, 07.07.2014.
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.32 of 2014 on the file of Principal District Court, Madurai, dated, 13.04.2018, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.88 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, dated, 07.07.214.
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.9 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Court, Madurai, dated, 13.04.2018, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.88 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, dated, 07.07.214.)
Common Judgment
1. The plaintiff is the appellant.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of his half share in the suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from in any way altering the structure of the suit property or creating any encumbrance over the suit schedule property till the suit property is divided by metes and bounds. The trial Court decreed the suit. The 2nd defendant filed A.S.No.32 of 2014. The defendants 3 and 5 filed A.S.No.5 of 2015. The 4th defendant filed A.S.No.9 of 2018. All the first appeals were filed before Principal District Court, Madurai. The learned District Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, allowed all the three appeals thereby dismissing the suit in entirety. As against the same, S.A(MD)Nos.589 to 591 of 2020 have been filed by the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff has contended that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Muthusamy Naidu. He had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his 1st wife, Rengammal on 13.07.1973 under Exhibit A.1. The said Rengammal had died issueless. The 2nd wife, namely, Muthammal and her son Pitchai @ Narayanasamy inherited the suit schedule properties and they were in joint enjoyment. After the death of Muthammal and Pitchai @ Narayanasamy, the plaintiff and his son are in joint enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, he is the son of Pitchai @ Narayanasamy.
4. The plaintiff has further contended that the said Pitchai @ Narayanasamy, his father, has executed a registered Will under Exhibit A.4 on 17.11.1994 and bequeathed the properties in favour of the 1st defendant, namely, the son of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff admitted the execution of the Will, he questioned the right of the said Pitchai @ Narayanasamy to execute a Will in respect of the ancestral property. According to the plaintiff, after the death of father of his Pitchai @ Narayanasamy, the plaintiff and his son, namely, the 1st defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Since the 1st defendant is not amenable for partition, the present suit has been filed.
5. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the suit schedule properties are not ancestral properties in the hands of Muthammal and Pitchai @ Narayanasamy. During her life time, the said Muthammal had executed a settlement deed under Exhibit A.2 on 13.02.1978 in favour of his son Pitchai @ Narayanasamy. Since Muthammal and Pitchai @ Narayanasamy were co-owners and one of the co-owners has executed a settlement deed in favour of the other co-owner, Pitchai @ Narayanasamy became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, the said Pitchai @ Narayanasamy had executed a Will in favour of his grandson, namely, the 1st defendant under Exhibit A.4 on 17.11.1994. In view of the said Will, the 1st defendant alone is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and the
AI
The property inherited under Section 15 (2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act is absolute property, not coparcenary property, and the admission of a Will by the testator in a previous suit can be suffic....
A son born from a void marriage has rights to inheritance under amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, affirming equal status to legitimate and illegitimate children in claims for partition post the....
The father of the coparceners had no right to bequeath ancestral property via Will. Wills are invalid unless proven in accordance with statutory requirements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admissibility and proof of a Will should adhere to the mandate prescribed under the Evidence Act, and examination of attesting witnesses i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the execution of wills must be proved in the manner known to law, and failure to do so may result in the wills being disbelieved by the court.
The validity of a Will can be upheld despite procedural omissions if supported by sufficient evidence, and a partition suit may be dismissed if barred by limitation.
A registered Will, executed in accordance with legal requirements, is valid and can determine the distribution of property, overriding claims for partition based on joint possession.
The validity of an unregistered Will must comply with the requirements of the Evidence Act and the Indian Succession Act. Additionally, non-testamentary instruments must be registered under the Regis....
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
