Supreme Court Upholds Father’s Right to Property Under Customary Hindu Law in Puducherry: Theiry Santhanamal vs. Viswanathan & Ors. (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 38

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.

Can a father be legally bound to share his self-acquired property with his sons during his lifetime? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court case concerning a property dispute in Puducherry. The Court examined the application of customary Hindu law in the region, specifically addressing whether sons have a right to demand a share in their father’s property while he is still alive. The bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, delivered a judgment that clarifies the rights of a father over his self-acquired property under the applicable customary law.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property in Puducherry, originally belonging to Mr. Mariasusai Mudaliar. Upon his death in 1953, the property was inherited by his two sons, Oubegaranadin and Simon. In 1959, the brothers partitioned the inherited properties. Subsequently, in 1971, they exchanged some properties, and the suit property was allotted to Oubegaranadin.

Later in 1971, Oubegaranadin and his sons, respondent nos. 3 to 5, entered into a partition deed, allotting a larger share jointly to his minor sons, respondent nos. 3 to 5. However, in 1974, Oubegaranadin filed a suit to nullify this partition deed, claiming absolute ownership of the suit property. The court decreed the suit in his favor based on the submission of the guardian (respondent no. 6).

In 1980, Oubegaranadin sold portions of the suit property to respondent nos. 1 and 2. Meanwhile, respondent nos. 3 to 5, relying on the 1971 partition deed, sold their respective shares in the suit property to the appellant in 1980 and 1981. This led to a conflict over ownership, which was further complicated by the 1974 decree nullifying the partition deed.

In 1983, respondent nos. 3 to 5 filed a suit challenging the 1974 decree and the sales made by their father, as well as the sales they themselves had made to the appellant. They argued that the 1974 decree was obtained fraudulently and that they were coerced into selling their shares to the appellant.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially upheld the 1974 decree, finding no prejudice to the interests of the minor sons (respondent nos. 3 to 5). It also held that the sales by the sons were not under coercion but were made out of necessity. However, the court directed the appellant and respondent nos. 1 and 2 to pay an additional amount to the sons.

On appeal, a single judge of the High Court reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the 1974 decree was fraudulent and not binding on the sons. The High Court declared respondent nos. 3 to 5 as the absolute owners of the property, subject to the sales they had made.

The Division Bench of the High Court overturned the single judge’s decision. It held that under the customary Hindu law applicable in Puducherry, sons cannot claim partition of their father’s property during his lifetime. Therefore, the 1971 partition deed was invalid, and the father was the absolute owner of the property.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the customary Hindu law as applicable to the Union Territory of Puducherry. The High Court noted that by Regulation dated January 06, 1817, the French Code was applicable, and by Regulation dated April 24, 1880, the Code of Civil Procedure was made applicable to Puducherry. According to Section 3 of the 1817 Regulation, Indians, whether Hindus, Muslims, or Christians, would continue to be governed by the usages and customs of their respective castes.

The High Court also pointed out that though the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was made applicable in Puducherry, it does not apply to Christians by virtue of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, Christians in Puducherry continue to be governed by customary Hindu law as the law of succession.

The relevant articles of the French Code cited by the High Court are:

• “931. Every instrument containing a donation inter vivos shall be executed before notaries in the ordinary from the contracts, and the original shall remain with them; otherwise such instruments shall be void.”
• “1075. Fathers and mothers and other ascendants may make a distribution and division of their property between their children and descendants.”
• “1076. These divisions may be made by donations or by wills in accordance with the formalities conditions and rules laid down for donations inter vivos and wills.”
• “1077. If all the property which are ascendants leaves at the time of his death has not been included in the division, such property as has not been included in the division, such property as has not been included shall be divided according to law.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The partition deed dated March 15, 1971, is valid because it was executed by the father, Oubegaranadin himself, and not demanded by the sons.
• The High Court wrongly applied the French Code, as the Hindu Succession Act was already in force in Puducherry.
• The decree in O.S. No. 70/1974 is not binding on the sons because the procedure under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was not followed. Specifically, the court did not obtain leave for the compromise as required for minors.
• The mortgage deed dated October 22, 1979, by Oubegaranadin is invalid as he had no title.
• The sale deed of 1980 by Oubegaranadin in favor of respondent nos. 1 and 2 is invalid.
• The sale deeds by the sons to the appellant are valid.
• Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are barred by the principles of res judicata from challenging the findings of the Single Judge.

Respondents’ Arguments (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2):

• Under the customary Hindu law applicable in Puducherry, children cannot demand a share in their father’s property during his lifetime.
• Any partition between the father and sons is inconsistent with the law.
• The father was entitled to seek a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the property.
• The partition was set aside by the father through judicial process.
• The transfer by the father was for family necessity and stands on a higher footing.
• The procedural impropriety under Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC is not relevant as the sons had no right to claim a share in the property during their father’s lifetime.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellant’s contention that the partition deed was valid because it was initiated by the father, not the sons, and therefore, customary Hindu law should not apply.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the Partition Deed dated March 15, 1971, is valid in law.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Customary Hindu Law in Puducherry: The court relied on the customary Hindu law as applicable in Puducherry, which does not recognize the right of sons to claim partition of their father’s property during his lifetime.
• French Code: The court referred to Articles 931, 1075, 1076, and 1077 of the French Code, which govern donations and divisions of property.
• Badri Naraya Singh v. Kamdeo Prasad Singh & Anr. [AIR 1962 SC 338]: This case was cited by the appellant in support of the submission predicated on res judicata. However, the court did not elaborate on how this case was used in the reasoning.
• Lonankutty v. Thomman & Anr. [(1976) 3 SCC 528]: This case was cited by the appellant in support of the submission predicated on res judicata. However, the court did not elaborate on how this case was used in the reasoning.
• Narayana Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu v. Narayana Prabhu Krishna Prabhu (Dead) By LRs. [(1977) 2 SCC 181]: This case was cited by the appellant in support of the submission predicated on res judicata. However, the court did not elaborate on how this case was used in the reasoning.
• Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple & Anr. v. Meenakshi Ammal & Ors. [(2015) 3 SCC 624]: This case was cited by the appellant in support of the submission predicated on res judicata. However, the court did not elaborate on how this case was used in the reasoning.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Customary Hindu Law: The Court accepted that the customary Hindu law in Puducherry does not allow sons to claim partition of their father’s property during his lifetime.
• French Code: The Court used Articles 931, 1075, 1076 and 1077 of the French Code to determine that the partition deed did not meet the requirements for a valid gift or family settlement.
• Badri Naraya Singh v. Kamdeo Prasad Singh & Anr. [AIR 1962 SC 338], Lonankutty v. Thomman & Anr. [(1976) 3 SCC 528], Narayana Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu v. Narayana Prabhu Krishna Prabhu (Dead) By LRs. [(1977) 2 SCC 181] and Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple & Anr. v. Meenakshi Ammal & Ors. [(2015) 3 SCC 624]: These cases were cited by the appellant in support of the submission predicated on res judicata. However, the court did not elaborate on how this case was used in the reasoning.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the customary Hindu law applicable in Puducherry. The Court emphasized that under this law, a father is the absolute owner of his property, and his sons do not have a right to claim partition during his lifetime. The Court also noted that the partition deed was not valid as it did not meet the requirements for a valid gift or family settlement under the French Code.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal considerations, with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the partition deed was initiated by the father, not the sons, but rejected it. The Court emphasized that the father’s absolute ownership under customary Hindu law meant he could not be compelled to partition his property during his lifetime. The Court also considered the French Code and found that the partition deed did not comply with the required formalities for a valid gift or family settlement.

The decision was based on the interpretation of the customary Hindu law and the French Code. The Court rejected the argument that the Hindu Succession Act applied, as the parties were Christians. The Court also rejected the argument that the partition deed was valid simply because the father initiated it.

The Court’s decision was unanimous.

The Court’s decision upholds the father’s right to his self-acquired property under customary Hindu law in Puducherry, emphasizing that sons cannot claim a share in the property during his lifetime. This decision clarifies the legal position in the region and has implications for property disputes involving similar circumstances.

The court quoted:

• “The High Court has held that by Regulation dated January 06, 1817, the French Code was applicable and by Regulation dated April 24, 1880, Civil Procedure Code was made applicable to Puducherry.”
• “As per the said French Code, customary Hindu Law was applicable. Applying that law, the High Court has concluded that since Oubegaranadin was the absolute owner of the said property, as per Hindu law sons cannot seek partition in the property of their father.”
• “Therefore, the Partition Deed dated March 15, 1971 was not a valid instrument and the findings of the Single Judge that Oubegaranadin had lost his right by virtue of partition deed is contrary to law.”

Key Takeaways

✓ Under the customary Hindu law applicable in Puducherry, a father is the absolute owner of his self-acquired property.

✓ Sons cannot claim a right to partition their father’s property during his lifetime.

✓ A partition deed executed by a father in favor of his sons is not valid unless it meets the requirements of a valid gift or family settlement under the French Code.

✓ The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not apply to Christians in Puducherry; they continue to be governed by customary Hindu law.

This judgment clarifies the property rights of fathers in Puducherry under the applicable customary Hindu law and reinforces the principle that sons cannot demand a share in their father’s self-acquired property during his lifetime. It also highlights the importance of complying with the formalities required for valid gifts and family settlements under the French Code. This decision will likely have a significant impact on future property disputes in the region.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that under the customary Hindu law applicable in Puducherry, a father is the absolute owner of his self-acquired property, and his sons cannot claim a right to partition it during his lifetime. This decision reinforces the existing legal position in Puducherry and clarifies the interpretation of customary Hindu law in the context of property rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that under the customary Hindu law applicable in Puducherry, a father is the absolute owner of his self-acquired property, and his sons cannot claim a right to partition it during his lifetime. The Court also found that the partition deed executed by the father was invalid because it did not meet the requirements of a valid gift or family settlement under the French Code. This judgment clarifies the property rights of fathers in Puducherry and reinforces the principle that sons cannot demand a share in their father’s self-acquired property during his lifetime.