Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, J
Shyam Prasada – Appellant
Versus
Dayavati – Respondent
CS (OS) 1113/2008|CS (OS) 3452/2014|Test. Cas. 23/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manish Vashisht, Jeevesh Nagrath, Rikky Gupta
For the Respondents: A.K. Singla, Bhaskar Tiwari
A nomination does not confer absolute title, and a female Hindu’s interest in property only enlarges to absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act if she held possession under a pre-existing right of maintenance upon the Act’s commencement.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 and Section 14(1) and (2) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 58, 74, 90, 94 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 2(h) and 63 - Partition and succession - Property rights of female Hindu - Suit for partition of immovable and movable assets - Joint leasehold interest - Whether nomination constitutes testamentary disposition - Whether oral family arrangement established - Whether property held by female Hindu in lieu of maintenance becomes absolute - Held, succession of intestate estate follows heirs in Class I of Schedule - Nomination does not equate to testamentary disposition lacking attestation and intent. (Paras 8, 9, 15, 17, 18, 20).
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 58, 59, 66, 69, 106 - Partition suit - Limitation period - Co-ownership - Possession of one co-owner is deemed to be possession of all - No period of limitation prescribed for partition of undivided property where title is not disputed until act of hostility occurs. (Paras 22, 23, 24).
Facts of the case:
The litigation involves competing claims over the estate of a deceased father and later, a mother. The plaintiffs sought partition of the father’s undivided share in a residential plot and movable assets, contesting the defendants' claim that the property devolved solely upon the mother through oral family arrangement or her pre-existing right to maintenance. The defendants, after the mother's death, relied on a will and codicil to assert their title to the property.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of a registered relinquishment by the legal heirs or an oral family arrangement. The nomination provided to a housing society does not meet the requirements of a valid Will under the Succession Act. The mother’s possession did not confer absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act as she was not in possession of the property at the time the Act came into force, and no proven right of maintenance existed over that specific property.
Issues: Whether the nominees possess absolute rights over the property; whether an oral family arrangement existed to exclude legal heirs; whether the suit was barred by limitation; and whether the property was held by the female owner in lieu of maintenance, enlarging her limited interest to absolute ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: Nomination facilitates receipt of benefits but does not confer beneficial title, which must pass to legal heirs under succession laws. The doctrine of enlargement of interest for a female Hindu requires the claimant to be in possession of the property under a pre-existing right at the time of the Act, which was not satisfied. A suit for partition between co-owners is not subject to the limitation period applicable to declaratory suits where adverse possession is not established.
Result: Suits for partition decreed, allocating equal shares to legal heirs of the father; testamentary case disposed of in accordance with findings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of related suits regarding partition of family property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural background and development of factual matrix. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. nomination versus testamentary disposition and burden of proof of oral family arrangement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. scope of female hindu ownership under section 14 of hindu succession act. (Para 18) |
| 5. validity of testamentary dispositions and proof of wills. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. limitation period for partition suits and final adjudication of shares. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.:
Preface: -
1. The captioned suits and the testamentary case are inter-related and involve members of the family of one, Mr. Savitri Prasada and, hence, will be decided by a common judgement. For the sake of convenience, the genealogy of Mr. Savitri Prasada is shown hereafter.
2. Thus, the parties will be referred hereafter by their names unless the context requires otherwise. Furthermore, Mrs. Dayavati and Mr. Arun Prasada will be collectively referred to as the contesting defendants while the Legal Representatives [in short "LRs"] of Mr. Aditya Prasada, LRs of Mrs. Sudha Garg, and LRs of Mrs. Rekha Garg will be referred to as the supporting defendants.
3. The two suits i.e. CS (OS) 1113/2008 [in short "2008 suit"] and CS (OS) 3452/2014 [in short "2014 suit"] seek, essentially, the partition of an immovable property described as plot number 12, Anand Lok, New Delhi [hereafter referred to as the "subject property"].
3.1. The reason that two suits have been filed qua the same immovable property is on account of the fact that when the first suit was filed in 2008, partition was sought of a portion of the subject property i.e. 396.65 sq. yards out of a total of 793.30 sq. yards [hereafter referred to as the "suit property"]. The partible portion i.e. the suit property, according to Brigadier (Retd.) Shyam Prasada i.e. the plaintiff in the 2008 suit, then, was the 50% share which was co-owned by Mr. Savitri Prasada along with his wife Mrs. Dayavati.
3.2. However, during the pendency of the 2008 suit, Mrs. Dayavati expired, which then led to the institution of the second suit i.e. the 2014 suit to seek partition of the remaining 50% of the subject property that fell to her share.
3.3. Since Mrs. Dayavati had executed a Will dated 09.11.1992 whereby the subject property, in its entirety, was bequeathed in favour of one of her sons i.e. Mr. Arun Prasada, he instituted the third proceeding which is the testamentary case no. 23/2014 [hereafter referred to as the "testamentary case"].
3.4. Apart from the prayer for partition, in the 2008 suit, whereby, Brigadier (Retd.) Shyam Prasada claims 1/7th share out of his deceased father share admeasuring 396.65 sq. yards i.e. the suit property, there is also a prayer for rectification of a conveyance deed dated 27.03.2000 – this conveyance deed was executed by the Delhi Development Authority [DDA] in favour of Mrs. Dayavati after the subject property was converted from leasehold to freehold.
3.5. The rectification sought, then, was for inclusion of the name of Brigadier (Retd.) Shyam Prasada and his siblings i.e. defendant nos. 2 to 6 in the 2008 suit along with Mrs. Dayavati; who was alive, at that juncture. Besides this, a prayer was also made, in the very same suit, for a decree for the rendition of accounts against Mrs. Dayavati and Mr. Arun Prasada in respect of shares, debentures, FDRs, bank accounts possessed by the deceased Mr. Savitri Prasada and a consequent share in the same.
3.6. Since on 14.02.2014, Mr. Arun Prasada had moved the testamentary case in which he sought probate of the Will dated 09.11.1992 and the codicil dated 24.02.2000 which was executed by Mrs. Dayavati, on 10.11.2014, the second suit i.e. the 2014 suit filed by Brigadier (Retd.) Shyam Prasada came to be moved before this Court. In this suit, Brigadier (Retd.) Shyam Prasada not only sought partit
