The suit for partition of the estate of Late. Patel Hanume Gowda was filed in 1976 by his second wife&daughter from second marriage. After death of Gowda his children from first marriageestate took control of his estate. In the suit brought against them, they produced a Will stated to have been executed by Gowda in 1962, by which his undivided interest was bequeathed to them.
Plaintiff contended that the will obtained was result of undue influence and coercion exercised by defendants on Gowda. The trial court found that the Will was proved to have been validly executed in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. However, on basis of the prohibition by Hindu Personal Law the court invalidated the disposition of undivided share in coparcenary interest as per the Will executed.
The plaintiffs were therefore given 1/10th share in the undivided interest by the trial court. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Karnataka High Court reversed the declaration of the trial Court, relying on Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act. The court said as laid down by Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act, a Hindu testator may dispose of any property which is capable of being disposed of by him by Will or other testamentary disposition in accordance with Indian Succession Act of 1925.
The plaintiffs further approached the Supreme Court. Their arguments against the execution of Will were rejected by the Court, noting that it could not interfere with the factual findings of the High Court and trial court.The apex court while referring to the exception contained in explanation to Section 30 of the Act said - 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.
Therefore the Apex Court while dismissing the appeal said the judgment authored by High Court that the testator Gowda was qualified to execute a Will bequeathing his undivided share in the joint family properties by Will executed in 1962 was valid & thus no further independent share could be claimed by the appellants.
Courtesy/By: Mayank Agarwal
|
25 Jan 2019
