Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
V.K.RATHNAVALLI – Appellant
Versus
V.K.MOHANAKRISHNAN – Respondent
RFA NO. 104 OF 2016
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The dispute involves inheritance rights under Hindu Mitakshara law, specifically concerning the validity of a will and the claim of a sister to a share in the family property (!) (!) .
The properties in question were originally family properties of an ancestor, and subsequent partition deeds have allocated these properties to the father of the parties involved (!) (!) .
The plaintiff claims rights as a coparcener under the amended Hindu Succession Act, asserting that she is entitled to a share of the property based on the law that deems daughters as coparceners from the date of the amendment, which is post-2004 (!) .
The defendant relies on a will executed by their father before the amendment, arguing that the will is valid and that the plaintiff’s claim as a coparcener is invalid due to the prior execution of the will (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which grants coparcenary rights to daughters, does not apply to dispositions made before December 20, 2004. Since the will was executed in 1987, it prevails over the claim of the plaintiff to share as a coparcener (!) (!) .
The evidence regarding the execution of the will was deemed sufficient, with the court finding that the will was properly executed and attested, and that the signatures were genuine (!) (!) .
The court examined the testator’s mental state at the time of executing the will and found no evidence to support claims of insanity or lack of sound disposing mind (!) (!) .
The differences in signatures between the will and the earlier partition deed were considered insignificant, especially given the long interval and consistent signing style, leading to the conclusion that the signatures were genuine (!) (!) .
The reasons provided in the will for excluding the plaintiff were considered valid and justified, and no evidence supported the claim that the testator lacked mental capacity (!) (!) .
The court upheld the trial court’s decision, dismissing the appeal due to lack of legal merit, and confirmed that the will was valid, thereby negating the plaintiff’s claim to a share based on her status as a coparcener under the amended law (!) (!) .
The court also noted that the legal effect of the partition deed and subsequent property status did not alter the validity of the will or the rights of the parties involved (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the dispute centers on the right to inheritance under hindu mitakshara law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims of birthright under the amended hindu succession act are assessed against prior wills. (Para 4 , 5 , 9) |
| 3. the court evaluated the evidence related to the will's execution and its implications. (Para 6 , 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. validity of the will and assumptions on mental state were found unfounded. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. the appeal was dismissed based on lack of legal grounds. (Para 17) |
Sathish Ninan, J.
The suit for partition was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff is in appeal.
2. The plaintiff is the sister of the defendant. They are the children of late Krishnan Ezhuthachan. The parties are governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law of Inheritance. The plaint schedule consists of four items of properties. The properties were the family properties of one Umbu Ezhuthachan, the father of Krishnan Ezhuthachan. Under Ext.B2 Partition Deed dated 19.03.1958, the properties were allotted to Krishnan Ezhuthachan.
3. On 24.10.1988, Krishnan Ezhuthachan died. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant claims right over the entire property on the strength of Ext.B1 Will dated
16.02.1987 allegedly executed by their father, Krishnan Ezhuthachan. She disputed the Will. She also claimed to be a coparcener entitled to share in the family property.
4. The defendant contended that the plaintiff did not acquire any right by birth over the property. He also asserted his claim under Ext.B1 Will.
5. The trial court negatived the plaintiff's claim of having acquired right by birth over the property. The court further upheld Ext.B1 Will. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.
6. We have heard Shri.G. Sreekumar Chelur, the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, and Shri.K. Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the respondent-
defendant.
7. The points that arise for determination are:- (i) Is the claim of the plaintiff that she has acquired right by birth over the plaint schedule properties by virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, sustainable in law?
(ii) Has the defendant succeeded in proving the due execution and attestation of Ext.B1 Will?
(iii) Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any interference?
8. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that, by virtue of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, Section 6 has been substituted. Under the new provision, the daughters are also deemed to be coparceners who acquire right by birth, in the family properties. Therefore, at the time of the death of Krishnan Ezhuthachan, since he had a son and a daughter living, he had only 1/3rd right. Therefore, even if Ext.B1 Will is valid, the plaintiff has 1/3rd right over the property, which is liable to be partitioned, it is argued.
9. We are unable to agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. Section 6 (1) and the proviso thereto of the Hindu Succession Act , as substituted by the Amendment Act, 39 of 2005 reads thus:
“6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.—(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall—
(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener:, Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.”
It is explicit therein that, the substituted Section 6 (1) of the Act, which confers the status of a coparcene
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
