Inherited properties from a female Hindu without issues are absolute, not ancestral; admissions can validate Wills despite procedural oversight.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 15(2)(b) - Legal heirs of property devolved from a female Hindu who died intestate - The property inherited from a husband is absolute property and not coparcenary. The plaintiff denied the validity of Will executed by Pitchai @ Narayanasamy in favor of the 1st defendant; however, the appellate court concluded that the property was absolute and the Will was valid. (Paras 20 to 31)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 68 and 70 - Admission of execution of a Will is sufficient proof, despite the absence of attesting witnesses, if admitted by the testator in prior proceedings. (Paras 25 to 30)

Facts of the case:
The suit concerns partition of properties originally settled by Muthusamy Naidu, with the plaintiff claiming a share based on ancestral rights. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the appellate court found the properties absolute and ruled against the plaintiff.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court validated the previous Wills and deeds, deeming them effective, leading to dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.

Issues: Determining the character of properties and validity of Wills.

Ratio Decidendi: Properties devolved under Hindu Succession do not retain ancestral status; admissions during litigation validate Wills.

Result: The Second Appeal is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. the plaintiff's claims for partition and objections to previous deeds. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5)
2. final judgment of the trial court upholding the plaintiff's claims. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. arguments from plaintiff regarding validity of wills and history of the property. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14)
4. interpretation of property character under hindu succession act. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. validation of will based on admissions in previous litigation. (Para 25 , 28 , 29)

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 plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties.

6. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that both the parties have admitted Exhibit A.1 - settlement deed executed by Muthusamy in favour of his 1st wife Rengammal. Muthusamy did not have any issues through Rengammal and the said Rengammal died intestate. On the death of Rengammal, the properties would devolve upon the 2nd wife of Muthusamy, namely, Muthammal and her son Pitchai @ Narayana

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60737

MADRAS HIGH COURT R. Vijayakumar, J.Radha P. v. IrudayadossS.A(MD) Nos. 589 to 591 of 2020

Inherited properties from a female Hindu without issues are absolute, not ancestral; admissions can validate Wills despite procedural oversight.

MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Vijayakumar, J.
Radha P. v. Irudayadoss
S.A(MD) Nos. 589 to 591 of 2020