Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Wills in Property Dispute: Sunkara Lakshminarasamma vs. Sagi Subba Raju (28 November 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2018

Citation: Not Available in the source document

Judges: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and MukeshKumar Rasikbhai Shah. The judgment was authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Can a court overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a property dispute where the validity of two wills was challenged. The core issue was whether the lower courts correctly upheld the validity of the wills, which determined the ownership of the disputed properties. This case involved multiple suits concerning property partition and specific performance, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.

Case Background

The case involves a complex property dispute originating from three separate suits. O.S. No. 98 of 1984 was filed by the appellants for the partition of Schedule A property, challenging one alienation made by Veeraswamy. O.S. No. 97 of 1984 was also filed for the partition of Schedule A and B properties and for the eviction of several defendants. O.S. No. 72 of 1983 was filed by Sagi Subba Raju for the specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.09.1974, executed by Veeraswamy.

The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the partition suits and defendants in the specific performance suit, contested the validity of the wills based on which Veeraswamy claimed ownership of the properties. The respondents were the purchasers of the properties from Veeraswamy and Sagi Subba Raju, who sought specific performance of the sale agreement.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed O.S. Nos. 97 and 98 of 1984 (partition suits) and partly decreed O.S. No. 72 of 1983 (specific performance suit), directing the sale of 1/3rd of the property to Sagi Subba Raju. The first appellate court confirmed these decisions. Aggrieved by these judgments, the appellants filed appeals before the High Court. Sagi Subba Raju also filed an appeal (L.P.A. No. 323 of 1992) seeking the full decree for specific performance.

The High Court heard all appeals together and ruled against the appellants, confirming the dismissal of the partition suits and fully decreeing the specific performance suit in favor of Sagi Subba Raju. Thus, there were concurrent findings of three courts against the appellants in the partition suits and in favour of the respondent in the specific performance suit.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and validity of two wills, Exhibit B4 and Exhibit B106, and their impact on property rights. The case also touches upon the principles of specific performance of contracts and the implications of abatement of suits due to the death of parties and non-joinder of legal representatives.

The Supreme Court refers to Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which deals with the abatement of suits and appeals when the legal representatives of a deceased defendant are not brought on record within the prescribed time.

Order 22 Rule 4, CPC states:

“…where within the time limited by law, no application is made to implead the legal representatives of a deceased defendant, the suit shall abate as against a deceased defendant.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the lower courts were wrong in concluding that the wills (Exhibits B4 and B106) were proved.
• They contended that they had a 2/3rd share in the suit properties, and therefore, the wills could not grant the beneficiary (Veeraswamy) rights exceeding the remaining 1/3rd share.
• The appellants claimed that the purchasers from Veeraswamy should be evicted since Veeraswamy only had a 1/3rd share in the property and no right to alienate the full extent of the properties.
• In the specific performance suit, the appellants argued that they would face hardship if the decree was confirmed due to the escalation of property prices since the agreement of sale.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the wills were duly proved.
• They contended that Veeraswamy became the owner of the property through the wills.
• The respondents stated that the purchasers have been in peaceful possession of the properties for 40-50 years, with some having further alienated the properties to third parties.
• They argued that the appeals were not maintainable because the appellants had deleted some defendants from the array of parties and failed to bring the legal representatives of deceased defendants on record.
• They contended that the decree passed in favour of the deceased/deleted defendants holding Veeraswamy had the right to sell the property had attained finality.

The respondents argued that the validity of the wills and the sales made by Veeraswamy stood confirmed in respect of the deceased/deleted defendants.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondents’ argument that the appeals were not maintainable due to the deletion of parties and the failure to bring the legal representatives of deceased defendants on record, leading to conflicting decrees, was a strong and innovative point. It highlighted a procedural flaw that could undermine the entire appeal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the issues that the court addressed are:

1. Whether the lower courts were justified in concluding that the bequests (Wills) relied upon by the defendants, i.e., Will dated 14.08.1932 (Exhibit B4/Ex.P1) in respect of Schedule A property and the Will dated 05.10.1968 (Exhibit B106/Ex. P2) in respect of Schedule B property executed for the benefit of Veeraswamy, were proved.
2. Whether the plaintiffs have a 2/3rd share in the suit properties, and whether the bequests (Exhibits B4 and B106) will not confer any right to the beneficiary in excess of the remaining 1/3rd of the properties.
3. Whether the Defendant Nos. 5 to 125 & 127, being the purchasers of the properties from Veeraswamy, are liable to be evicted.
4. Whether the suit for specific performance was rightly decreed.
5. Whether the appeals are maintainable given that a number of defendants were deleted from the array of parties, and some defendants died during the pendency of the suits without their legal representatives being brought on record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and case laws:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts on the validity of the wills and the ownership of the properties.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Order 22 Rule 4, CPC: The Court applied this provision to highlight the procedural defect in the case, where the legal representatives of the deceased defendants were not brought on record, leading to the abatement of the suit against them.
• Narinderjit Singh vs. North Star Estate Promoters Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 712: The Court followed this precedent to reject the argument that the escalation of property prices was a valid ground for denying specific performance.
• Shahazada Bi vs. Halimabi, (2004) 7 SCC 354: The Court relied on this case to dismiss the appeals in their entirety, emphasizing the need to avoid conflicting decrees.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the validity of the wills. The Court emphasized that the appellants had not seriously disputed the validity of the wills and that the lower courts had correctly concluded that Veeraswamy was the sole owner of the properties. The Court also considered the procedural irregularities, such as the deletion of parties and the failure to bring legal representatives of deceased defendants on record, which made the appeals non-maintainable. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the need to avoid conflicting decrees.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court placed significant weight on the factual findings of the lower courts, particularly regarding the validity of the wills. However, legal considerations, such as the procedural requirements under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC and the need to avoid conflicting decrees, also played a crucial role in the final decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument of hardship due to price escalation but rejected it, citing the precedent in Narinderjit Singh vs. North Star Estate Promoters Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 712. The Court also considered the argument that the appeals were not maintainable due to the deletion of some defendants and the failure to bring the legal representatives of deceased defendants on record. The Court accepted this argument, relying on Shahazada Bi vs. Halimabi, (2004) 7 SCC 354, and held that allowing the appeals would lead to conflicting decrees.

The decision was based on the principle that the Court should not make inconsistent decrees about the same subject matter. The Court also noted that the vendor, Veeraswamy, had supported the alienations in favor of the defendants.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

“The court cannot be called upon to make two inconsistent decrees about the same property, and in order to avoid conflicting decrees the court has no alternative but to dismiss the appeal as a whole.”

“In the matter on hand, the absence of certain defendants who have been deleted from the array of parties along with the absence of legal representatives of a number of deceased defendants will prevent the court from hearing the appeals as against the other defendants.”

“The subject matter in the suit is the validity of the two Wills. The Courts including the Division Bench of the High Court have consistently held that the two Wills are proved, and thus Veeraswamy being the beneficiary under the two Wills had become the absolute owner of the suit properties in question.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are generally upheld by the Supreme Court unless there are compelling reasons to interfere.
• ✓ The validity of a will, once established, confers ownership rights to the beneficiary, allowing them to alienate the property.
• ✓ Bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration from the rightful owner are protected.
• ✓ Mere escalation of property prices is not a valid ground to deny specific performance of a contract.
• ✓ Failure to implead legal representatives of deceased defendants can lead to the abatement of the suit against them and potentially the entire appeal if it leads to conflicting decrees.
• ✓ Courts will avoid passing conflicting decrees concerning the same subject matter.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of specific amendments in the provided source document.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will generally uphold concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, particularly regarding the validity of wills, and will avoid passing conflicting decrees. The case reinforces the importance of procedural compliance, especially in bringing legal representatives of deceased parties on record. It also reiterates that mere escalation of property prices is not a valid ground to deny specific performance of a contract. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court’s judgment that upheld the validity of the wills and the ownership rights of Veeraswamy. The Court also upheld the specific performance decree and emphasized the need to avoid conflicting decrees, highlighting the importance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings.