By Dr. K. Shivaram, Ajay R. Singh, Advocates
fiogf49gjkf0d
The common ancestor to whom the parties trace their lineage was one Roop Narain, who was the perpetual lessee, as per perpetual lease of plot of land at New Delhi. He admittedly died intestate and was survived by two sons one of them is Amar Nath and four daughters. The other brother and the four sisters executed a relinquishment deed in favour of their brother Amar Nath, who thus inherited the perpetual lease hold rights in the property upon the death of Roop Narain. A residential building was inherited by Amar Nath. Amar Nath had two wives named Kamla Devi and Chand Rani both of whom pre-deceased Amar Nath. Dispute arose between the two sons of Amarnath – Prem Bhatnagar and his brother Daya Narain.
With respect to the property being ancestral in the hands of Amar Nath, case of the protagonist i.e. those who questioned the Will was that since Amar Nath inherited the property from his father Roop Narain, law imparted an ancestral character to the property. Secondly, that when Roop Narain died, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had been promulgated, as per Section 4 whereof the provisions of the Act expressly had overriding effect over any text, rule, custom or usage amongst Hindus which was contrary to the Act.
The Delhi High Court held that the text of Hindu Law is that a male Hindu, on birth, acquires an interest in the Joint Hindu family properties. If there was a Joint Hindu family property when Prem Bhatnagar was born, he could have possibly argued that he acquired an interest in the property by birth. But, when Prem Bhatnagar was born, there neither was a joint Hindu Family nor any property belonging to the joint Hindu family. The suit property was owned by his grandfather Roop Narain and parties are not at variance that Roop Narain acquired the property from his own funds. Thus, Roop Narain held the property as his individual property and not as joint Hindu family property. He died in 1957 by which date the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was in operation. Thus, succession to the estate of Roop narain was as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 since Roop Narain died intestate.
The High Court further held that people making disproportionate bequest, is not an unknown thing in law. After all, one object of a Will is to alter the natural line of succession or a share in a property which may be inherited by devolution of interest. A disproportionate bequest by itself is not a suspicious circumstance. That relationship between a father and all his children was equally good and yet in spite thereof only one child is made the beneficiary is again not a suspicious circumstance by itself. The Will was registered before the Sub- Registrar the day next of his execution. The High Court finally held that the testator has written that the beneficiary i.e. Ravi Mohan would need the consent of Roop Rani before he could sell the property does not make Roop Rani an interest witness. She has no interest inasmuch as nothing has been bequeathed to her. The condition in the Will that if Ravi Mohan were to sell the property, he would need the permission from Roop Rani, is void, for the reason the bequest in favour of Ravi Mohan is absolute and since mode of enjoyment cannot be curtailed; a clause curtailing the same in the bequest is void.
