Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1481
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N S SANJAY GOWDA, J
SRI. VINAYAK PAI – Appellant
Versus
SRI. P. GANESH KAMATH – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.406 OF 2017 (PAR)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. B.L. ACHARYA, SRI. KISHOR B.K.
For the Respondents: SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY
The validity of a registered Settlement Deed must be challenged explicitly for it to be dismissed; without a challenge, the prior Will remains effective.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Execution of Will and Settlement Deed - Suit for partition - Dispute arising from the validity of Settlement Deed allegedly executed during the testator's lifetime, which was claimed to render the Will ineffective - Trial Court found the Will executed and settled the property; appeal contested on grounds of incapacity of the testator and the issues surrounding the Settlement Deed's execution. (Paras 42-46)
(B) Onus of proof - The party seeking to invalidate a registered document must demonstrate its invalidity through explicit pleadings and evidence, without which the validity stands. (Paragraphs 41, 46)
Facts of the case:
A partition suit was filed by P. Ganesh Kamath against Vinayak Pai and M. Muralidhar Prabhu based on a Will, with arguments regarding a Settlement Deed executed previous to the Will. The Trial Court ruled in favor of partition based on the Will, which the appellant contested, asserting the Settlement Deed's validity.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed on the grounds that the Trial Court improperly assessed the Settlement Deed's validity without a challenge raised by the respondents. The Will's execution was affirmed based on presented evidence confirming the testator's mental capacity at the time of the Settlement Deed.
Issues: The primary issues concerned the validity of the Settlement Deed claimed to negate the Will and whether the testator's mental capacity was sound during its execution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that to dismiss a registered instrument, a clear and direct challenge is required; also, it reaffirmed that the testator's absolute right to dispose of property invalidates previous bequests if a subsequent valid deed exists.
Result: The appeal is granted and the suit shall stand dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of property ownership via partition suit. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against the binding nature of the settlement deed. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 3. assessment of testator's mental capacity. (Para 30 , 32 , 36) |
| 4. requirements for validating a registered document. (Para 41 , 46) |
| 5. outcome of the appeal dismissal. (Para 47) |
JUDGMENT
1. The defendant No.1 is in appeal.
2. P. Ganesh Kamath instituted a suit against Vinayak Pai and M. Muralidhar Prabhu seeking for a decree of partition and to declare that he was entitled to 1/3rd share in property bearing R.S.No.347, TS No.424 measuring 10 cents of converted land in Kasba Bazar Village.
3. P. Ganesh Kamath contended that the suit property was owned by K. Panduranga Nayak, who had executed a registered Will on 12.09.2011 whereunder he had bequeathed the suit property in favour of himself, Vinayak Pai and M. Muralidhar Prabhu jointly. It was stated that K. Panduranga Nayak died on 11.06.2014 and on his death, the suit property devolved on all the three legatees and P.Ganesh Kamath was entitled to inherited 1/3rd share.
4. He stated that he was in joint possession of the property and since it was found difficult to manage the property jointly, he had intimated his inability to continue as the co-owner and had requested for a partition by meets and bounds.
5. He also contended that certain vested interests were falsely representing that they had an absolute right over the property and were setting up a title hostile to that of the plaintiff and therefore he had been constrained to issue a paper publication on 05.08.2014 warning the general public not to deal with the property since it belonged to him and the defendants jointly.
6. He stated that he had also issued a legal notice dated 08.08.2014 to Vinayak Pai and M.Muralidhar Prabhu demanding his share and in response, Vinayak Pai had given a false and frivolous reply. It was stated that in view of this reply, though M. Muralidhar Prabhu had supported the partition, he was constrained to seek for partition.
7. Vinayak Pai entered appearance and contested the suit by filing a written statement. He stated that the suit property was initially belonging to Rukuma Bai wife of K.Panduranga Nayak, she having acquired it under a Sale Deed dated 08.09.1969. He stated that Rukuma Bai had executed the Will dated 10.08.2006 in favour of her husband i.e., K.Panduranga Nayak and on her death on 25.10.2010, K.Panduranga Nayak had become the absolute owner of the suit property.
8. He stated that K. Panduranga Nayak had thereafter executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 20.11.2012 settling the property in his favour and he had thus became the absolute owner of the said property. It was stated that in view of the Settlement Deed executed by K. Panduranga Nayak during his lifetime, the question of the Will having come into effect on his death would not arise at all. He denied the assertion that the suit property was liable to be partitioned.
9. M. Muralidhar Prabhu also entered appearance and filed the written statement. He however supported the case of P. Ganesh Kamath and requested that the suit be decreed as prayed for.
10. The Trial Court framed, in all, six issues.
11. The first issue was as to whether P. Ganesh Kamath had proved the execution of the Will and the second issue was as to whether he had succeeded to the said property along with Vinayak Pai and M. Muralidhar Prabhu on the death of K. Panduranga Nayak and the third issue was as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd share.
12. The fourth issue that had been framed was as to whether Vinayak Pai had acquired the suit properties under the Settlement Deed dated 20.11.2012.
13. In support of his case, P.Ganesh Kamath examined himself as PW1 and also got five other witnesses examined. He also got marked in evidence 32 documents.
14. On behalf of M. Muralidhar Prabhu, he got himself examined as DW1 and also got examined two other witnesses and in all produced 67 documents.
15. T
