Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J
SIVADAS K.R., GOPINATHDAS K.R, K.G. SANTHAMMA – Appellant
Versus
RAMAVILASOM N.S.S. KARAYOGAM NO.690 – Respondent
RSA NO. 4 OF 2015 | AS NO.200 OF 2011 | OS NO.119 OF 2002
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.M.Narendrakumar
For the Respondents: Sri.Rajeev V.Kurup
A properly constituted Will, despite controversial provisions, is valid under Indian law, provided it aligns with statutory requirements regarding transfer and perpetuity, affirming appeals are dismissed when lower court's findings are substantial.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63(c) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 5, 10, 14, 18 - Validity of Will regarding property bequeathed to an unincorporated association - Will executed by Bhaskaran Pillai questioned for not being executed in favor of a living person and for violating rules against perpetuity - Constitutionality discussed through precedent cases highlighting the necessity of clarity in testamentary dispositions. (Paras 4, 8, 20, 22)
(B) Will Execution - Requirement of testamentary dispositions clear under law, determining validity and uncertainty of the Will - The court upheld the Will based on proper evidence and adherence to legal provisions, ultimately dismissing the appeal for lack of merit, maintaining prior court decisions. (Paras 22, 23)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the plaintiffs appeal against the dismissal of partition and injunction suit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. validity of will in context of customary hindu law. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding execution and statutory rights in property. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. evaluation of the legal standing and interpretation of will provisions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. final ruling affirming the lower court decisions and dismissing the appeal. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs 3 to 5 in O.S. No.119 of 2002, a suit for partition and injunction on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam, have preferred the present appeal, challenging the dismissal of the suit by the trial court, as confirmed by the Additional District Court-II (Special), Kottayam, in A.S. No.200 of 2011.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:
The plaint schedule property belonged to one Bhaskaran Pillai, who died unmarried. Bhaskaran Pillai derived the right title and interest over the plaint schedule property by a partition deed No.3397/83 of SRO, Kanjirappally. Bhaskaran Pillai died on 10.9.2001. On 19.6.1999, Bhaskaran Pillai executed a Will in favour of the 1st defendant, Karayogam, and deposited the same with the District Registrar and on 10.10.2001, the Will was registered as document No.142/2001. The plaintiffs questioned the disposition in favour of the 1st defendant by raising a contention that going by the customary Hindu Law, late Bhaskaran Pillai could not have created a memorial in his own name. It is further pointed out that the Will cannot take effect because there is a direction in the Will to pay tax in the name of Bhaskaran Pillai Memorial, and further, the land in question cannot be alienated. Therefore, the plaintiffs contended that the Will is void on account of the following reasons:
1. Not executed in favour of a living person or a juristic person.
2. The object and subject of the Will, as enumerated therein, are uncertain.
3. Recitals in the Will do not indicate as to how the first defendant should carry out the directions.
4. There is no indication as to how the 1st defendant should construct the building and whether it has any authority over the same.
5. The Will does not contain any stipulations as to how the 1st defendant should use the income for running the institution.
6. The Will also does not indicate as to how the surplus income should be put to use by the 1st defendant.
7. The intention of the testator to construct a memorial in the name of Bhaskaran Pillai is against the object and interest of the 1st defendant, Karayogam.
8. The Will does not contain any directions as to the persons who are entitled to the benefit of the trust and hence is uncertain.
9. There is nothing in the Will to indicate that the property is vested with the 1st defendant.
Therefore, it was contended that, ignoring the Will, the plaintiffs are entitled to partition.
3. Incidentally, the execution of the Will was also disputed inasmuch as it was the case of the plaintiffs that the Will was executed by the deceased Bhaskaran Pillai without a proper mental state. Defendants 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement contending that at the time of execution of the partition deed, Bhaskaran Pillai was working at Rajasthan, and during 1994, he returned to his native place and started residing at the plaint schedule item No.2. While Bhaskaran Pillai was working at Jaipur, he permitted his brother Sivarama Pillai to look after the property. After returning from Jaipur, he requested the 4th defendant to vacate the building. O.S. No.170 of 1995 was filed by Bhaskaran Pillai, and the same was decreed allowing him to recover the possession of the property from the 4th defendant. The plaintiffs and the 5th defendant, being sisters, had no attachment to Bhaskaran Pillai and only wanted to use the property under his name, and there were several litigations between them, which is precisely the reason why Bhaskaran Pillai execu
