G. RAJENDRA vs. Smt. G. NALINI

INTRODUCTION

According to Sanskrit text and Mitakshara Law, property is divided into two types: unobstructed heritage and obstructed heritage. Unobstructed heritage grants male descendants the birthright to property without any hindrance, known as the doctrine of son’s right by birth. In this case, each son inherits an equal share in the joint family property upon birth. On the other hand, obstructed heritage is acquired upon the death of the last owner without leaving a male heir. In obstructed heritage, if a person with a son inherits the property, the son has no rights until the father’s death, and even then, it is only a chance of inheritance. Unobstructed heritage is transferred through survivorship, while obstructed heritage is transferred through succession. However, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 recognizes inheritance only through succession, starting from September 9, 2005.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties and the deaths of Dr. N. Gopala Rao and Smt. B. Anandamma. The main issue before the court is narrow in scope. The Plaintiffs claim that the property in question is their father’s self-acquired property, and they seek a 1/11^th share. Defendant No.1 to 5 & 9 support this claim. However, Defendant No.6 disagrees and argues that the property is joint family property, entitling Plaintiff No.1 & 2 and Defendant No.6, 7, and 8 to 12/66^th each as male coparceners, and the rest of Defendant No. 1 to 5 and 9 to 1/66^th share as daughters/female members of the joint family.

The law does not require a specific number of witnesses or documents to prove a fact. The quality of evidence is more crucial than the quantity. If even a single document presented by Defendant No.6 appears more credible than the extensive records provided by the plaintiffs, the court must uphold Defendant No.6’s contention.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants 1 to 3 have executed the release deeds in his favor during the year 2011 as such he is entitled to 4/11^th share in the suit schedule properties?
2. Whether the 6^th defendant proves that he is entitled to 12/66^th share in the suit schedule properties?
3. Whether the 6^th defendant proves that the release deed executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in the year 2011, during the pendency of the suit is not valid document and is void and Sec.52 of Transfer of Propert Act attracts?
4. Whether plaintiffs prove the alleged will dtd.20.5.1981 executed by Dr.N.Gopala Rao in favor their mother Smt.B.Anandamma?

ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT

Defendant No.6 acknowledges the relationship but denies the execution of the two wills. He argues that the property was purchased by his grandfather in the name of his father, making it joint family property. He claims a share for himself and others. He also argues against the sale of a portion of the property and challenges the plaintiffs’ right to purchase it.

In an amended statement, defendant No.6 argues against the release deed executed by defendants 1 to 3, claiming it was not valid. He alleges collusion between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 and requests an equal share for himself and others, and a share for defendants 1 to 5 and 9. Defendant No.7’s written statement was not considered as the court dismissed the application to condone the delay. Defendant No.9 admits the allegations but denies certain claims. She claims a share in the property and requests its dismissal, but if decreed, she asks for her share and is willing to pay the court fee.

Defendant No.2(b) admits the allegations and states she is the fostered daughter. She executed a relinquishment deed in favor of the first plaintiff.

ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT

The plaintiffs argue that Dr. N. Gopala Rao, whom they claim to be their father as well as the father of defendants 1 to 9, purchased the schedule property located at 7^th Block Basavanagudi in a public auction held by Bangalore Municipality on 18.7.1932. He used his own earnings to buy the property, which consists of site numbers OS.No.5607/2003 No.4, No.4/13, 5/59, and 59. Dr. N. Gopala Rao then built the main house and two small houses with tile roofing at the northern end of the property. He lived there throughout his life, exercising all the rights of ownership, and the property was registered in his name.

Subsequently, Dr. N. Gopala Rao sold portions of the property to various individuals through different sale deeds. One of the properties that was sold to Mr. L.G. Vasantharao was repurchased by the first plaintiff. The remaining property, which is the subject of the current legal dispute, is the suit schedule property.

The plaintiffs further contend that Dr. N. Gopala Rao passed away on 15.7.1985, leaving a will dated 20.5.1981 in which he bequeathed the suit schedule property to his wife, Mrs. B. Anandamma (also known as B. Ananda Bai). Afterward, Mrs. B. Anandamma passed away on 30.3.2001, leaving a testamentary will dated 29.3.1999, in which she bequeathed the suit schedule property to all her children. However, an additional 4% of the sale proceeds was granted to the first plaintiff due to the financial and other assistance he provided to his mother during her lifetime. As the defendants have refused to partition the property according to their mother’s wishes, the plaintiffs have filed the present lawsuit.

JUDGMENT

The court pronounced its judgment openly, and the following order was made:

• The plaintiffs’ lawsuit is partially granted.
• It is decreed that the properties mentioned in the lawsuit shall be divided into 11 equal portions using specific boundaries
• The plaintiffs have the right to have their share of the property separated and be in separate possession. Plaintiff no.1 is entitled to one share, including the 3/11^th share that defendants no.1 to 3 have given up in favor of plaintiff no.1.
• Plaintiff no.2 and defendants no.4 to 9 are entitled to a 1/11^th share eeach
• Considering the relationship between the parties, they are responsible for their own ccosts
• Prepare a preliminary decree for partition accordingly.

Therefore, the impact of Section 52 mentioned above, in the context of this case, would only mean that the sale transactions in favor of the appellants will not negatively affect the rights of the plaintiffs and will be subject to the final outcome of the lawsuit in question. However, the High Court, despite acknowledging that these transactions were affected by the pending lawsuit (lis pendens), went on to state that the sale deeds made in favor of the present appellants were illegal. These additional remarks made by the High Court cannot be endorsed for the reasons explained earlier.

CONCLUSION

The concept that the mere existence of a joint family does not imply joint ownership of property is well-established. Simply being part of a joint family does not automatically mean that all the property owned by family members is collectively owned. In order to establish the existence of joint family property, the person making such a claim must provide evidence of a nucleus or a source from which the property could have been acquired. This nucleus refers to the initial property or funds that formed the foundation of the joint family’s assets.

The burden of proof lies on the person asserting the existence of joint family property. They need to demonstrate that there was a common pool or ancestral property that was contributed to or acquired by the joint family as a whole. This proof is necessary to establish a connection between the property in question and the joint family.

This article is written by Mudragada Iswarya Lakshmi, a student of ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad, 6^th semester, an Intern under Legal Vidhya.

Admin