RADHAMMA vs. H.N. MUDDUKRISHNA

  NON­REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7092 OF 2010        RADHAMMA & ORS.         ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS  H.N. MUDDUKRISHNA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)    J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dismissing RFA No. 347/1998 holding   that   the   appellants   are   not   entitled   to   claim   any share in the joint family properties. The appellants/plaintiffs th filed   a   suit   on   16.1.1976   for   1/10   share   in   the   suit properties described in the schedule to the plaint as ‘A’ to ‘H’. The learned trial Court decreed the suit declaring that the second plaintiff (since first plaintiff died on 7.7.1978 leaving th behind daughter) Smt. Nagamma is entitled for 1/10  share of joint family properties in the plaint which are scheduled Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date: 2019.01.23 16:55:17 IST Reason: properties ‘A’ to ‘E’ and the properties in the plaint scheduled ‘F’ & ‘G’ were held to be the self­acquired properties of the 1 testator,   and   property   ‘H’   was   declared   as   the   exclusive property of the Smt. K.C. Saroja.  The judgment and decree of the trial  Court  came   to  be   challenged  in  the  regular   first appeal before the High Court by the present appellants in RFA No. 347/1998 and RFA No. 922/2001 was filed by the defendants­respondents   against   the   self­same   impugned judgment. The High Court after hearing the parties and on reappraisal of the evidence while affirming the finding of fact in reference to the registered Will Exhibit­D2 dated 16.6.1962 of the testator held that the respondents have established the due execution of the Will as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act.  But while answering the question in reference th to the 1/10  share of the plaintiff no.2 in the undivided share of the testator in the joint family properties schedule ‘A’ to ‘E’, took note of Section 30 read with explanation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and held that a coparcener derives a right to dispose of his undivided share in Mitakshara joint family property by “Will” or any testamentary disposition i.e. by virtue of law and accordingly reversed the finding recorded th by   the   learned   trial   Court   holding   1/10   share   of   the 2 appellants/plaintiffs in the schedule of the properties referred in ‘A’ to ‘E’.   2. Mr.   Girish   Ananthamurthy,   learned   counsel   for   the appellants has tried to persuade this Court that the finding which has been recorded in reference to execution of the Will of   the   testator   Exhibit­D2   dated   16.6.1962   appears   to   be suspicious for the reasons that the testator Patel Hanume Gowda died on 6.2.1965 and the registered Will Exhibit­D2 dated 16.6.1962 has not seen the light of the day until filing of the suit by the present appellants/plaintiffs on 16.1.1976 and the testator was unwell during the period the Exhibit­D2 was  scribed   and   further   submitted   that   there   appears   no reason/justification   for   the   testator   to   have   a   complete exclusion of one branch of the family i.e. the daughter from his second marriage from the schedule of properties of the testator falling in schedule ‘A’ to ‘H’ which indisputedly was either the joint family property or the self­acquired property of the testator.   3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that even if the testator could have bequeathed his share in the undivided joint family  properties through a  registered Will 3 dated   16.6.1962   still   the   independent   share   of   the appellants/plaintiffs as a member of the family in the joint family properties could not have been divested and that is an apparent error which has been committed by the High Court and needs interference of this Court.  4. None appeared for the respondents despite service. 5. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants and with his assistance perused the record and we find no error in the concurrent finding of fact as recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the High Court holding the properties schedule   ‘A’   to   ‘E’   belong   to   joint   family   properties   and property ‘F’ & ‘G’ are self­acquired properties of the testator and property schedule ‘H’ was exclusively of Smt. K.C. Saroja. The suspicious circumstances highlighted by the appellants with   reference   to   the   Will   Exhibit­D2   dated   16­6­1962,   a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded holding that the defendants were able to establish due execution of the Will as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act and we find no reason to disturb the same.  6. The submission of the learned counsel in reference to th 1/10   share   of   the   appellants/plaintiffs   in   the   undivided 4 share of the testator in joint family properties identified as schedule ‘A’ to ‘E’, we are unable to accept the contention for the   reason   that   the   Will   Exhibit   D­2   was   executed   on 16.6.1962 and the testator died on 6.2.1965, subsequent to the coming into force of the Act, 1956.   It is true that prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, no coparcener could   dispose   of   whole   or   any   portion   of   his   undivided coparcenary interest by Will but by virtue of Section 30 of the Act read with explanation, a coparcener derives his right to dispose   of   his   undivided   share   in   Mitakshara   joint   family property by Will or any testamentary disposition i.e. by virtue of law.  The said provision reads thus:­ “ Testamentary succession  30.(1)    Any   Hindu   may   dispose   of   by   will   or   other testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of being   so   disposed   of   by   him,   in   accordance   with   the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus.  Explanation:  The interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary   property   or   the   interest   of   a   member   of   a tarwad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru in the property of the   tarwad,   tavazhi,   illom,   kutumba   or   kavaru   shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other   law   for   the   time   being   in   force,   be   deemed   to   be property  capable   of   being  disposed   of  by him  or  by  her within the meaning of this sub­section. (2) For   the   removal   of   doubts   it   is   hereby   declared   that nothing contained in sub­section (1) shall affect the right to maintenance of any heir specified in the Schedule by reason only  of the fact that  under a will or other testamentary disposition   made   by   the   deceased   the   heir   has   been deprived of a share in the property to which he or she would have been entitled under this Act if the deceased had died intestate.”  5 7. Section 30 of the Act, the extract of which has been referred to above, permits the disposition by way of Will of a male   Hindu   in   a   Mitakshara   coparcenary   property.     The significant   fact   which   may   be   noticed   is   that   while   the legislature was aware of the strict rule against alienation by way of gift, it only relaxed the rule in favour of disposition by way of a Will of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property.   Therefore, the law insofar as it applies to joint family property governed by the Mitakshara school, prior to the amendment of 2005, when a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 leaving at the time of his death an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property,   his   interest   in   the   property   will   devolve   by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary. An exception is contained in the explanation to Section 30 of the   Act   making   it   clear   that   notwithstanding   anything contained   in   the   Act,   the   interest   of   a   male   Hindu   in Mitakshara coparcenary property can be disposed of by him by Will or any other testamentary disposition and in the given facts and circumstances, the testator Patel Hanume Gowda was   indeed   qualified   to   execute   a   Will   bequeathing   his 6 undivided   share   in   the   joint   family   properties   by   a   Will Exhibit D­2 dated 16.6.1962. 8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in claiming independent share as a member of the family in the joint family properties is without substance for the reason that the appellants have no independent share in the joint family properties and their share could be devolved in the undivided share of the testator in the joint family properties and   since   the   testator   has   bequeathed   his   share/his undivided coparcenary interest by Will dated 16.6.1962, no further independent share could be claimed by the appellants in  the   ancestral  properties   as   a  member   of   the   family   as prayed for. 9. We find  no error in the  judgment  of the  High Court which may call for interference, consequently the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.  No costs.  10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.        ……………………………..J.        (A.M. KHANWILKAR)        ……………………………..J.         (AJAY RASTOGI) NEW DELHI January 23, 2019. 7