1 V. Prabhakrara vs. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by Lr. and another AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4830 Date of order: 7th October, 2021 Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul J. and M.M. Sundresh J.
Suit Property – Doubting genuineness of a registered will – factors such as existence of a forged unregistered will and severance of relationships to be kept in mind before raising suspicion on the registered will – Registered will is held to be valid. [Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S. 63, S.68]
FACTS
The Suit Property originally belonged to one Ms. Jessie Jayalakshmi (since deceased). The deceased Ms. Jessie Jayalakshmi, a spinster, was the maternal aunt of the Appellant/Plaintiff. Mr. Vijay Kumar and Ms. Kantha Lakshmi were his brother and sister, respectively. It is the case of the Appellant that the deceased, Ms. Jessie Jayalakshmi adopted him as her son and that he took care of her when she suffered an attack of paralysis.
A registered Will was executed by Ms. Jessie Jayalakshmi on signature in favour of the Appellant. The said Will was attested by Mr. Vijay Kumar, brother of the Appellant. Ms. Jessie Jayalakshmi was also brought to the office of the Sub-Registrar by none other than Ms. Kantha Lakshmi.
The relationship between Ms. Kantha Lakshmi and her husband (Respondent No. 1) got strained. She obtained a divorce decree on 26th March, 1988. It is the further case of the Appellant that Respondent No. 1 was permitted to reside in the Suit Property. The Respondent No. 1 refused to vacate the Suit Property, which is a residential house.
The Defendants/Respondents while acknowledging the factum of execution of the registered Will, introduced an unregistered Will, allegedly executed by Ms. Jessie Jayalakshmi in favour of the Respondent No. 2 (minor son of Respondent No.1).
The trial court held in favour of the Petitioner holding that the registered will had been proved. It gave exhaustive reasoning for doubting the genuineness of the unregistered will.
The High Court reaffirmed the findings of the Trial Court. However, the High Court did an exercise by entertaining a suspicion about the genuineness of the registered will and accordingly found that it has not been dispelled by the Appellant. On that basis, the suit was dismissed by allowing the appeal. The Appellant filed an appeal against the order of the High Court
HELD
A testamentary court is not a court of suspicion but that of conscience. It has to consider the relevant materials instead of adopting an ethical reasoning. A mere exclusion of either brother or sister per se would not create a suspicion unless it is surrounded by other circumstances creating an inference. In a case where a testatrix is accompanied by the sister of the beneficiary of the Will and the said document is attested by the brother, there is no room for any suspicion.
Both the Courts found that the unregistered will is a forged and fabricated document. The Appellate Court, in our considered view, has unnecessarily created a suspicion when there is none. That too, when the Trial Court did not find any. The factors such as the fabrication and severance of relationship between himself and his wife in pursuance of the decree for divorce, coupled with the status while squatting over the Suit Property being the relevant materials, ought to have weighed in its mind instead of questioning the registered Will.
Appeal was allowed.
2 Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 4000 of 2019 (SC) Date of order: 11th January, 2022 Bench: Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud J. and A. S. Bopanna J.
Consumer – Deficiency in services – Real Estate – Not obtaining Occupation Certificate amounts to deficiency in services. [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S. 2(1)(d), S. 2(1)(g)]
FACTS
The appellant is a co-operative housing society. The respondent constructed Wings ‘A’ and ‘B’ and entered into agreements to sell flats with individual purchasers in accordance with the Maharashtra Ownership Flats, 1963. The members of the appellant booked the flats in 1993 and were granted possession in 1997. According to the appellant, the respondent failed to take steps to obtain the occupation certificate from the municipal authorities. In the absence of the occupation certificate, individual flat owners were not eligible for electricity and water connections. Due to the efforts of the appellant, temporary water and electricity connections were granted by the authorities. However, the members of the appellant had to pay property tax at a rate 25 per cent higher than the normal rate and water charges at a rate which was 50 per cent higher than the normal charge.
HELD
The respondent was responsible for transferring the title to the flats to the society along with the occupancy certificate. The failure of the respondent to obtain the occupation certificate is a deficiency in service for which the respondent is liable. Thus, the members of the appellant society are well within their rights as ‘consumers’ to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability (such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners) arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate.
Appeal is allowed.
3 Murthy & Ors vs. C. Saradambal & Ors Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2010 (SC) Date of order: 10th December, 2021 Bench: L. Nageswara Rao J. and B.V. Nagarathna J.
Will – Sound and disposing state of mind – Onus on the propounder to discharge the suspicion pertaining to the execution – Letters of administration was not granted. [Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S. 68, Indian Succession Act, 1925, S. 63]
FACTS
E. Srinivasa Pillai, father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff, died on 19th January, 1978 leaving behind his last will and testament dated 4th January, 1978. The said will was said to be executed in the presence of two attestors. The testator E. Srinivasa Pillai had a son, named S. Damodaran, who died intestate on 3rd June, 1989 at Madras, leaving behind the plaintiff-wife C. Saradambal and his two daughters.
The testator, apart from his son, S. Damodaran, left behind two daughters.
The bequest was made in the name of testator’s son namely S. Damo viz., S. Damodaran to the exclusion of the testator’s daughters in respect of the house in which the testator and his family were residing. The daughters of the testator filed a suit in the City Civil Judge Court, Madras seeking partition of the said property and regarding the genuineness of the Will. Therefore, it had become necessary for the plaintiffs to file the petition seeking Letters of Administration. This was converted into suit.
The Trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal.
HELD
On reading Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 it is clear that the propounder of the will must examine one or more attesting witnesses and the onus is placed on the propounder to remove all suspicious circumstances with regard to the execution of the will.
The respondents-plaintiffs have failed to prove the will in accordance with law inasmuch as they have not removed the suspicious circumstances, surrounding the execution of the will. Hence, not being a valid document in the eye of law, no Letters of Administration can be granted to the respondents-plaintiffs.
Appeal is allowed.
4 Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath and another Civil Appeal No. 7037 of 2021 Date of order: 23rd December, 2021 Bench: M R Shah J. and Sanjiv Khanna J.
Hindu Undivided Family – Rights of Karta – Karta can sell HUF property – Signature of coparcener is not mandatory [Hindu Succession Act, 1956]
FACTS
Veluswamy, the Karta of the joint Hindu family executed an agreement to sell of the suit property and received advance from one Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy (the Appellant). On 26th November, 2007, the Appellant instituted the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, impleading both Veluswamy, the Karta and his son V Manjunath (coparcener).
The Trial Court held that the Karta of the joint Hindu family property was entitled to execute the agreement to sell.
His son preferred the regular first appeal before the High Court of Karnataka wherein it was held that the agreement to sell is unenforceable as the suit property belonged to the joint Hindu family consisting of three persons, K. Veluswamy, his wife V. Manimegala and his son V. Manjunath and, therefore, could not have been executed without the signatures of V. Manjunath.
On appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Right of the Karta to execute agreement to sell or sale deed of a joint Hindu family property is settled and is beyond cavil. Signatures of V. Manjunath, son of Karta – K. Veluswamy, on the agreement to sell were not required. K. Veluswamy being the Karta was entitled to execute the agreement to sell and even alienate the suit property. Absence of signatures of V. Manjunath would not matter and is inconsequential.
Appeal was allowed.
