Supreme Court Upholds Will of 1980, Declares Compromise Decree Non-Binding: H.V. Nirmala vs R. Sharmila (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 44

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can a compromise decree in a property dispute override a previously registered will? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a family dispute over inherited property. The core issue revolved around the validity of a registered will from 1980 versus a compromise decree from 1997, and whether the latter could nullify the former. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, with Justice Sapre authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The dispute centers around properties originally owned by Ramaiah. Ramaiah had two wives: Hemavathi and Nirmala. From his first marriage to Hemavathi, he had two children: a daughter, Sharmila (the plaintiff), and a son, Umesh. From his second marriage to Nirmala, he had a son, Rakesh Babu. Hemavathi passed away on 24 February 1989, and Ramaiah died on 26 November 1995.

On 11 October 1996, Umesh filed a suit (O.S. No. 7266 of 1996) against Nirmala and Rakesh Babu for partition of Ramaiah’s properties, based on a will dated 20 May 1995. This suit was resolved through a compromise decree on 25 January 1997.

Sharmila, Ramaiah’s daughter from his first wife, filed a suit (O.S. No. 7592 of 2000) on 4 November 2000, challenging the compromise decree. She claimed ownership of the properties based on a registered will dated 12 March 1980, which her father had executed in her favor. She sought a declaration that the compromise decree was not binding on her.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed Sharmila’s suit, holding that she failed to prove the original will dated 12 March 1980. The High Court of Karnataka, however, reversed this decision, concluding that Sharmila had successfully proven the will and was entitled to the declaration sought. The High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (Nirmala and Rakesh Babu) then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The key legal provision in this case is Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which states:

“Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.—If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.”

This section outlines the procedure for proving the execution of a document that requires attestation, such as a will. The court needed to determine if the plaintiff had met these requirements to prove the 1980 will.

Arguments

Plaintiff’s Arguments (Sharmila):

• ✓ The plaintiff argued that the registered will dated 12 March 1980, executed by her father, Ramaiah, in her favor, was valid and should be recognized.
• ✓ She contended that the compromise decree dated 25 January 1997 was not binding on her as she was not a party to the suit in which the decree was passed.
• ✓ The plaintiff submitted that she had successfully proven the will dated 12 March 1980 in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, by providing a certified copy of the registered will and by examining one of the attesting witnesses.
• ✓ She explained that the original will was not in her possession, but in the possession of Defendant No. 1, which justified the use of secondary evidence.

Defendants’ Arguments (Nirmala and Rakesh Babu):

• ✓ The defendants supported the compromise decree dated 25 January 1997, which was based on a subsequent will dated 20 May 1995.
• ✓ They denied the validity of the will dated 12 March 1980, claiming that the plaintiff had failed to prove it in accordance with law.

The innovativeness of the plaintiff’s argument lies in her ability to prove the existence and legality of the will dated 12 March 1980 by leading secondary evidence, since the original was not in her possession, and by examining an attesting witness, thereby fulfilling the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the Plaintiff (Respondent No.1 herein) was able to prove the Will dated 12.03.1980 in accordance with law.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• ✓ Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section was central to the case, as it outlines the requirements for proving the execution of a will. The court examined whether the plaintiff had met these requirements.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in its finding that the plaintiff had proven the will dated 12 March 1980 in accordance with law. The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.

The Court observed that the will dated 12 March 1980 was a registered will, executed by the father in favor of his minor children. The Court also noted that the original will was not in the plaintiff’s possession and that she had produced a certified copy and examined an attesting witness, thus fulfilling the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Furthermore, the Court noted that the subsequent will dated 20 May 1995 did not mention the earlier will.

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ The fact that the will dated 12 March 1980 was a registered document, indicating its authenticity.
• ✓ The will was executed by the father in favor of his minor children, which the court considered a natural act of bequeath out of love and affection.
• ✓ The plaintiff was able to prove the will by producing a certified copy and examining an attesting witness, in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
• ✓ The absence of any mention of the earlier will in the later will dated 20 May 1995 was also a significant factor in the court’s reasoning.
• ✓ The court also emphasized that the plaintiff was not a party to the compromise decree and therefore it was not binding on her.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ A registered will holds significant legal weight and can override a subsequent compromise decree if the decree is not binding on all parties.
• ✓ When proving a will, compliance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is crucial. This can be achieved through the examination of an attesting witness and, if the original is not available, by producing secondary evidence.
• ✓ A subsequent will should ideally mention the revocation of any earlier will to avoid any ambiguity.
• ✓ Compromise decrees are binding only on the parties to the suit.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a registered will, if proven in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, prevails over a subsequent compromise decree that was not binding on all parties. This case reinforces the importance of testamentary succession and the binding nature of registered wills.

Conclusion

In the case of H.V. Nirmala vs. R. Sharmila, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling in favor of the plaintiff. The Court emphasized the validity of the registered will of 1980 and its precedence over a later compromise decree, which the plaintiff was not a party to. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures for proving wills and the binding nature of registered testamentary documents.