Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4110 OF 2006
UMA SASHI DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
DIBAKAR BANERJEE AND OTHERS Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
1. It is, indeed, unfortunate that siblings are fighting for
right of ownership over properties left behind by their
mother, Smt. Mrinalini Devi.
2. Dispute with regard to properties described in Schedules
A,C and D and B and E appended to the Plaint, between real
sister, deceased Uma Shashi Devi and her brother
Sudhangshu Kumar Banerjee, has come to this Court for
deciding as to whether properties as mentioned
JUDGMENT
hereinabove in the Schedules have fallen exclusively to
the share of brother or part of it has fallen to the share
of sister.
Facts shorn of unnecessary details are mentioned
hereinbelow:
Original plaintiff – (sister) Uma Sashi Devi (since dead)
Page 1
2
filed a suit for declaration of a Title to the properties
described in Schedule A, C and D and for partition of
other properties described in schedule B and E, left
behind by their mother Smt. Mrinalini Devi (against her
real brother) Defendant Sudhangshu (also dead). During
the pendency of the matter, as described hereinabove,
sister and brother both have died but for the sake of
convenience, they would be described as Plaintiff (sister)
and Defendant (brother). Even though original parties to
the Suit are dead but no peace could be made with the
legal representatives. Original deceased parties are now
being represented by their legal representatives.
st
3. Plaintiff filed a Title Suit No. 26 of 1973 in the 1
Court the Subordinate Judge, Hooghly, against Defendant,
mentioning therein that all the disputed properties
originally belonged to Smt. Mrinalini Devi, their mother.
JUDGMENT
Thus, the Plaintiff would also have a share in the same.
Smt Mrinalini Devi died on 5.5.1971 at Chandernagore in
the District of Hooghly. According to the Plaintiff,
during her life time, she settled some of the properties
described in Schedules A,C and D appended to the plaint,
with the plaintiff by executing two registered Deeds of
Settlement on 22.02.1961. Properties described in
Page 2
3
Schedules B and E remained as her personal properties. On
her death, these properties were inherited jointly by
plaintiff and defendant as her legal heirs. According to
plaintiff, after the death of her mother on 5.5.1971, she
became absolute owner of properties shown in Schedule A,C
and D but with regard to properties shown in Schedule B
and E, she was entitled to claim 50 percent of the same
along with her brother Sudhangshu, Defendant to the Suit.
4. Since defendant refused partition of properties as
demanded by plaintiff, she was constrained to file the
aforesaid suit for declaration of her title to the
properties described in schedule A, C and D and for
partition of the other properties left behind by her
mother.
5. Defendant admitted that mother Mrinalini Devi was the
JUDGMENT
exclusive owner of the properties shown in Schedule
A,B,C,D and E but contended that she had executed a
‘Will’ before the Notary Public at Chandernagore on
19.9.1932 bequeathing properties to Defendant only. By
virtue of the said ‘Will’ executed in his favour by
Mrinalini Devi, he has become absolute owner of the entire
property that belonged to their mother. Defendant
Page 3
4
further averred that mother had no right to execute Deeds
of Settlement in favour of the plaintiff after execution
of the ‘Will’ in favour of the Defendant. He further
alleged that in any case, the Deeds of Settlement were
obtained by practising fraud, coercion and mis-
representation and thus, were not binding. Their mother
had become completely blind and hard of hearing. She
had also lost her mental balance since 1956. Looking to
her mental and physical condition, it was not possible for
her to understand the import of the Deeds of Settlement
and without understanding the same, she had put her thumb
impression. Even though thumb impressions have been
obtained on the Deeds, the same had been procured only by
mis-representation or fraud. Thus, the Deeds would not
convey any right, title or interest to the Plaintiff.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed
JUDGMENT
several issues. Parties went to trial and led evidence
to prove their respective cases. In respect of the
certified copies of the two Settlement Deeds executed in
favour of plaintiff, marked as Exh. I and I A, the writer
of those Deeds was examined in the Trial Court by the
plaintiff. On appreciation of evidence available on
record, the trial court dismissed the suit.
Page 4
5
7. Trial Court recorded a finding that at the time of
execution of the ‘Will’, Indian Succession Act, 1925 for
short “Succession Act” was not applicable in Chandernagore
which was governed by French Laws as it was a part of
French Colony. Therefore, after execution of the Will in
favour of the Defendant, she had no right, title or
interest to execute the Deeds of Agreement.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court, Plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 of
st
the C.P.C. before 1 Court of Additional District Judge,
Hooghly registered as Title Appeal No. 183 of 1981. The
lower appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated
25.09.1982 remanded it to Trial Court for disposal in
terms of the directions in the said order. This order of
remand was challenged by the Defendant by filing an appeal
JUDGMENT
in the High Court of Calcutta. The Division Bench of the
High Court of Calcutta allowed the appeal of the defendant
and sent it to the lower Appellate Court to decide it on
merits, in accordance with law.
9. The following directions were given by the Division Bench
of the High Court, reproduced hereinbelow:
Page 5
6
“It appears that the deeds were admitted in
evidence by the learned trial judge. If the
appellate court thought that these deeds could not
be admitted in evidence on the fact of the
particular case it ought to have decided that
question in appeal and if that is decided, there
cannot be any further question for decision as to
the nature and character of the documents
themselves and if the documents have been properly
admitted in evidence, the documents were available
in the records and the appeal court is quite
competent to determine the nature and character of
the documents themselves. The appellate court had
all the materials before it for determining the
nature and character of the documents. Without
deciding that question, the appellate court was
wrong in remanding the matter back to the trial
court for decision on that point. The question
whether these documents witnesses a testamentary
disposition is also not relevant as the plaintiff
herself never claimed it to be so. In this view of
the matter, we find no justification for remanding
the suit back for trial according to the direction
given by the impugned order.
The appeal is accordingly allowed without any order
as to costs. The impugned order is set aside, and
the appeal will go back to the appellate court
below which will decide the same in accordance with
law. We make it clear that we have not entered
into the merits of the case of respective parties.
No formal decree need be drawn up.”
10.
In the light of the aforesaid directions, the
JUDGMENT
Appellate Court was once again seized of the appeal filed
by the plaintiff, but it proceeded to dismiss the same on
merits.
11. Thus, the plaintiff was constrained to file Second
Appeal No. 178 of 1997 against the judgment and decree of
Page 6
7
Appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of
Trial Court, before learned Single Judge of the High
Court.
12.
Plaintiff’s Second Appeal was admitted on the
following substantial questions of law:
i. Whether the defendant is entitled to claim his
right, title and interest in the suit properties
unless a probate is granted of the Will (Ext.A) by
a court of competent jurisdiction.
ii. Whether the deeds of settlement (Exh. 1 and
1A) are valid in the eye of law or in other words
the plaintiff has been able to prove due execution
and registration of the same s as to create right,
title and interest in favour of the plaintiff in
respect of the properties mentioned therein.
13. Learned Single Judge of the High Court vide impugned
Judgment and decree dated 21.5.2004 dismissed the second
appeal of the plaintiff. Hence this appeal.
14. In the Second Appeal, High Court recorded a finding
that plaintiff has not been able to make out a case for
JUDGMENT
loss or destruction of original documents Exh. A and A1,
Deeds of Settlement in her favour. Thus, no case was
made out for leading secondary evidence as the loss of the
originals was not established. In view of this,
findings as recorded by the Appellate Court that
Settlement Deeds Exh. 1 and 1A, have not been proved in
Page 7
8
accordance with law, was confirmed by High Court.
15. Consequently, it held that plaintiff is not entitled
for any declaration of her right, title or interest with
regard to the property shown in Schedule A,C and D. Thus,
substantial question of law No. (ii) as mentioned
hereinabove was decided against the plaintiff.
16.
As regards question No. (i), it was held by learned
Single Judge that indisputably, properties involved in the
‘Will’ Exh. A were situated within French Chandernagore
and the said Will having been executed within the said
territory, testatrix Smt. Mrinalini Devi had all rights
of its disposition by ‘Will’ executed on 19.9.1932 in
favour of the defendant.
17. Referring to Section 213 of the Succession Act, it
JUDGMENT
came to the conclusion that there was no need for the
‘Will’ to be probated as it would fall within sub section
2 of Section 213 of the said Act.
18.
Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that
Exh. A and A1 were duly proved in accordance with law.
Thus, properties shown in Schedules A, C and D would fall
Page 8
9
to the exclusive share of Plaintiff only. As the original
register containing the same were brought by PW – 2, who
had proved that the certified copies filed thereof are the
true and correct copies of Exh. A and A1 as per the
register maintained by the Registrar. It was also
contended that admittedly testatrix of the ‘Will’ dated
19.9.1932 was an illiterate lady and therefore, as per
French Civil Code, the ‘Will’ could have been proved by an
affidavit, duly sworn by another witness mentioning
therein that this is the copy of the ‘Will’ said to have
been executed by testatrix as she was unable to sign. It
was also contended that when there is Division of estate
amongst Class I heir, then Class I legal heir cannot be
given more than half the portion in the estate of the
deceased.
19. Learned Senior counsel Mr. Arvind Varma, appearing
JUDGMENT
for the Plaintiff submitted that since Mrinalini Devi had
executed the ‘Will’ in the year 1932, when Chandernagore
was a French Colony, then the French Civil Code and
French laws alone would apply to the Will. Irrespective
of the date of death of the testatrix, which took place on
5.5.1971, learned counsel for the appellant also submitted
that Chandernagore Act 1954 as Chandernagore (Assimilation
Page 9
10
of Laws) Act, 1955 would be required to be considered in
extenso in this appeal.
20. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr.
Bhaskar P. Gupta, assisted by Mr. Partha Sil, appearing
for the Respondents, submitted that following proposition
of law would be required to be addressed by this Court in
this appeal.
“1) The validity of execution of the Will of 1932
will be judged by the law governing the execution of
Wills on the actual date of execution. Such
execution was a concluded event, on the date of the
merger of the Chandernagore with India. The instant
Will, being a Will made by public act, conforms to
all the requirements under the French Code.
2) The validity and legality of the
disposition under the Will of 1932, will have to be
judged by the law prevailing and governing the
testatrix at the time of the death of the testatrix
i.e. 1971 when the Will spoke and not by the law
obtaining on the date of the execution of the Will.
This Will was not required to be probated under the
Indian Succession Act.
3) The French law as administered in the
colonies recognized Hindu Wills and uncodified
Hindu law as they were matters of personal law.
JUDGMENT
4) The Deeds are not settlement in law as
settlement can only be made in presenti. Further,
the foundation of leading secondary evidence not
laid, the Deed Writer’s Evidence does not
establish the connection between Uma Sashi and the
Deed.”
21.
In the light of the aforesaid submissions advanced by
Page 10
11
learned senior counsel appearing for the parties, we have
heard them at length and perused the records.
22. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the
whole matter, we thought it appropriate to give a chance
to parties to settle the matter amicably. We are of the
considered opinion that after all parties are closely
related to each other. Thus, it is a fit case to get it
settled mutually instead of deciding it by this Court. We
accordingly requested the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the parties to explore the possibility of a
settlement, but nothing concrete came out, even though
several proposals and counter proposals were exchanged.
23.
We have examined the details of the proposals floated
by Appellants in the light of various Schedules annexed to
the Plaint showing details of the disputed properties and
JUDGMENT
have worked out tentative market value thereof since
Respondents were not ready and willing to part away with
the properties and to give any thing out of it to the
Appellants, except for meagre monetary amount worked out
by them. The amount offered by them was so little that we
do not even feel proper to reflect it in the order.
Page 11
12
24. We have, therefore, given our serious thought to the
whole matter and suggested learned senior counsel
appearing for the Respondents that they should pay in all
a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) to the
Appellants, so that all disputes and litigation may come
to an end.
25.
One of the Respondents, namely Dibakar Banerjee, was
also present in the Court. Learned senior counsel took
instruction from him. Initially, he was not ready and
willing to pay the aforesaid amount on the ground that it
is not possible for him to arrange this amount. We then
asked him to give proportionate land of the aforesaid
value to the Appellants. But this suggestion was also not
acceptable. Later Respondents agreed that they would pay
the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs)
in all to the Appellants, but it can only be paid in
JUDGMENT
installments spreading over a period of 18 months.
According to us, this was a reasonable suggestion given by
the Respondents. The Appellants agreed for this mode of
payment. We accordingly pass the following order.
26. Respondents are directed to pay an initial amount of
th
Rs.1,00,000/- to the Appellants on or before 14 of
Page 12
13
August, 2012. Remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- would be
paid by the Respondents in five quarterly installments of
Rs.80,000/- each, until the balance is paid. In case
Respondents fail to make the aforesaid payment of
Rs.5,00,000/- in total period of 18 months from today,
then they would also be liable to pay interest on delayed
payment at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date
the payments have become due.
27. The interim order passed by this Court on 8.9.2006
hereby stands vacated. However, till the aforesaid
payment of Rs.5,00,000/- is not made, property shown in
Schedule A of the Plaint shall not be disposed of or
encumbered in any manner, and no third party rights would
be created thereon.
28. With the aforesaid directions, admittedly all
JUDGMENT
disputes between the parties have come to an end and the
appellants would not claim any right, title and interest
in the Schedule properties shown in Schedules A, B, C, D
and E appended to the Plaint.
29. We, indeed, highly appreciate the efforts made by
learned Senior Counsel Mr. Arvind Verma appearing with Mr.
Page 13
14
Vikramjeet, Advocate, for the Appellants and learned
Senior Counsel Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta appearing with Mr.
Partha Sil, Advocate, for the Respondents. But for their
persuasion and perseverance with their respective parties,
it would not have been possible to arrive at this amicable
settlement.
30.
This appeal accordingly stands disposed of with a
direction to the Registry to send back Original Record
forthwith. Parties to bear their respective costs.
................................J.
(DEEPAK VERMA)
................................J.
(K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 11, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Page 14