Supreme Court Upholds Survivorship Rights, Invalidates Will in Property Dispute: V. Kalyanaswamy vs. L. Bakthavatsalam (2020)

Date of the Judgment: July 17, 2020
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1021-1026 OF 2013, ETC.
Judges: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice K.M. Joseph
Can a will override the traditional laws of inheritance in a Hindu joint family? The Supreme Court recently addressed this complex issue, examining the validity of a will and the rights of coparceners. The core dispute centered on a property claimed by both the legal heirs of a deceased coparcener and the legatees under his will. The Supreme Court, in a detailed judgment, ultimately upheld the principles of survivorship and invalidated the will, clarifying the legal position on such matters. The majority opinion was authored by Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The case involves a long-standing property dispute stemming from the family of R. Venkitusamy Naidu, who had two sons, Lakshmiah Naidu and Rangaswami Naidu, and five daughters. Rangaswami Naidu, who had no children, allegedly executed a will. Lakshmiah Naidu had four sons: Bakthavatsalam, Venkatapathy, Jagannathan, and Ramaswamy. The dispute arose between those claiming rights under the will of Rangaswami Naidu and the legal heirs of Lakshmiah Naidu, with both sides claiming ownership of the same properties.

The legal battle began in 1955 with proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, concerning possession of disputed land. This was followed by several civil suits over decades, each attempting to settle the ownership and inheritance rights of the family property.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC were followed by O.S. No. 71 of 1958, filed by Rangaswami Naidu’s widow, Krishnammal, seeking a declaration of title and partition. This suit was eventually compromised. Later, O.S. No. 36 of 1963 was filed by some of the legatees under the will, challenging the compromise in O.S. No. 71 of 1958. This suit was also compromised. After the death of Krishnammal, O.S. No. 732 of 1981 was filed, again by some of the legatees, seeking partition. The current litigation arose with O.S. No. 649 of 1985, filed by Lakshmiah Naidu’s legal heirs, and O.S. No. 89 of 1983, filed by one of the legatees under the will. The trial court dismissed O.S. No. 89 of 1983 and decreed O.S. No. 649 of 1985. The first appellate court reversed this decision. The High Court, in second appeal, overturned the first appellate court’s decision, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several key legal provisions:

• Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This section deals with the property rights of female Hindus, distinguishing between absolute ownership (Section 14(1)) and restricted estates (Section 14(2)). The court analyzed whether the widow, R. Krishnammal, obtained absolute rights under Section 14(1) or a restricted estate under Section 14(2). The court also considered the impact of the 1937 Act.
• Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This section allows a Hindu to dispose of property by will. The court examined whether Rangaswami Naidu had the right to bequeath his interest in the joint family property.
• Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section specifies the requirements for executing an unprivileged will, including attestation by two witnesses.
• Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: These sections deal with proving the execution of a document required by law to be attested, particularly when attesting witnesses are unavailable.
• Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule prevents a plaintiff from splitting claims and requires them to include all claims arising from the same cause of action in one suit.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that Rangaswami Naidu had separated from the joint family by publishing a notice in the newspaper and sending a letter to his brother, Lakshmiah Naidu. They contended that the will was genuine and valid, and the evidence of attesting witnesses should be considered. They further argued that the widow only had a life estate which does not blossom into absolute right under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
• They relied on the principle that a member of a joint family can sever his connection with the family by an unequivocal declaration.
• They contended that R. Krishnammal had only a limited estate during her lifetime, which did not become absolute under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. They also argued that the decree in O.S. No. 71 of 1958 was invalid and that the suit filed by the legatees was not barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that there was no valid partition between the brothers and that the will was not genuine or valid. They contended that Lakshmiah Naidu inherited the property by survivorship. They also argued that the widow had a pre-existing right to maintenance, which transformed into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
• They challenged the validity of the will, arguing that it was not properly attested and that the original will was not produced. They also argued that the suit filed by the legatees was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
• They contended that the newspaper publication was a false claim to partition and that the will was procured under suspicious circumstances. They also argued that R. Krishnammal had acquired absolute right under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of the First Appellate Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether Rangaswami Naidu had separated from the joint family before his death, by virtue of publishing a notice and sending a letter to his brother.
3. Whether the will was genuine, valid, and free from suspicious circumstances.
4. Whether the evidence given by the attesting witness in Section 145 proceedings fulfilled the requirement of Section 69 of the Evidence Act.
5. Whether the High Court was right in holding that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applied to the facts of this case.
6. Whether the suit filed by the legatees was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied upon the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the will was invalid, as it failed to meet the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The court also found that the original will was not produced and that the evidence of attesting witnesses was insufficient. The court further held that the newspaper publication was not sufficient to prove a valid separation of the joint family and that the widow, R. Krishnammal, had a pre-existing right to maintenance, which transformed into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The court also found that the suit filed by the legatees was not barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Appovier v. Rama Subba Aiyan: Used to explain the concept of division of title versus division of property.
• Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj: Used to clarify that severance of status can be by a unilateral declaration.
• Addagada Raghavamma v. Addagada Chenchamma: Used to emphasize the requirement of communication for a valid division in status.
• Kalyani (Dead) by LRs v. Narayanan: Used to explain the concept of partition in Hindu law.
• Bhagwant P. Sulakhe v. Digambar Gopal Sulakhe: Used to clarify that character of joint family property does not change with severance of status.
• Krishnabai Bhritar Ganpatrao Deshmukh v. Appasaheb Tuljaramarao Nimbalkar: Used to explain how a division in a joint family could be brought about.
• Nanni Bai v. Gita Bai: Used to address the issue of unilateral division and its effect.
• K.S. Palanisami (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v. Hindu Community in General and Citizens of Gobichettipalayam& Ors.: Used to explain the intention of a testator in a will.
• Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike: Distinguished. The court held that the facts were different and that the pre-existing right to maintenance was not present in that case.
• Shivdev Kaur (Dead) by LRs & Others v. R. S. Grewal: Used to understand the nature of a limited estate and its conversion to absolute estate.
• Sharad Subramanyan v. Soumi Mazumdar & Ors.: Used to discuss the conditions for application of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
• Gaddam Ramakrishnareddy & Ors. V. Gaddam Rami Reddy & Ors.: Used to discuss the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.
• Bay Berry Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Shobha & Ors.: Used to explain when a cause of action arises.
• Usha Subarao v. B.E. Vishveswariah: Used to explain when a cause of action arises.
• Krishnayya Surya Rao Bahadur Garu and others v. Venkata Kumara Mahitathi Surya Rao Bahadur Garu: Used to explain the concept of ‘representative in interest’.
• Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi & Ors.: Used to discuss the capacity of a testator to deal with properties.
• Jalaja Shedhti& Ors. v. Lakshmi Shedhti & Ors.: Used to discuss the capacity of a testator to deal with properties.
• K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and others: Used to discuss the requirements of Section 69 of the Evidence Act.
• Babu Singh and others v. Ram Sahai alias Ram Singh: Used to discuss the requirements of Section 69 of the Evidence Act.
• Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd. v. Venturetech Solutions (P) Ltd.: Used to explain the application of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC.
• Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian: Used to explain the concept of cause of action.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and principles, particularly in matters of inheritance and testamentary disposition. The Court was influenced by the following factors:

• Adherence to Legal Procedures: The Court was keen to ensure that the legal requirements for proving a will and establishing a division in status were strictly followed.
• Protection of Survivorship Rights: The Court upheld the traditional rights of survivorship in a Hindu joint family, emphasizing that these rights cannot be easily overridden by a will.
• Interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act: The Court sought to give a broad interpretation to Section 14(1) to protect the rights of women, while also acknowledging the limitations imposed by Section 14(2).
• The Court also considered the conduct of the parties in the previous suits.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, finding that the evidence and legal principles favored upholding the rights of survivorship and invalidating the will.

The court carefully considered the factual matrix and applied the law to reach its decision.

Dissenting Opinion

There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by Justice K.M. Joseph, with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul concurring.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for property disputes in Hindu joint families. It reinforces the principle that a will cannot easily override the rights of coparceners to inherit by survivorship. It also clarifies the scope of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing that a pre-existing right to maintenance can transform into absolute ownership for a female Hindu. The judgment also underscores the importance of adhering to strict legal requirements when executing and proving a will.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in V. Kalyanaswamy vs. L. Bakthavatsalam is a significant ruling that reaffirms the traditional principles of Hindu inheritance law while also acknowledging the rights of women under the Hindu Succession Act. The judgment serves as a reminder that the legal process must be followed meticulously, particularly when dealing with testamentary dispositions and inheritance rights in joint families. The case highlights the complexities of property disputes and the need for a clear understanding of the relevant legal provisions.