WWW.LIVELAW.

IN

 NON­REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7092 OF 2010 
     

RADHAMMA & ORS.         ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

 H.N. MUDDUKRISHNA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

   J U D G M E N T

Rastogi, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of

the High Court of Karnataka dismissing RFA No. 347/1998

holding   that   the   appellants   are   not   entitled   to   claim   any

share in the joint family properties. The appellants/plaintiffs

filed   a   suit   on   16.1.1976   for   1/10 th  share   in   the   suit

properties described in the schedule to the plaint as ‘A’ to ‘H’.

The   learned   trial   Court   decreed   the   suit   declaring   that   the

second plaintiff (since first plaintiff died on 7.7.1978 leaving

behind daughter) Smt. Nagamma is entitled for 1/10 th  share

of joint  family properties in the plaint which are scheduled
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
NEELAM GULATI
Date: 2019.01.23
16:55:17 IST

properties ‘A’ to ‘E’ and the properties in the plaint scheduled
Reason:

‘F’ & ‘G’ were held  to be the self­acquired properties of the
1
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

testator,   and   property   ‘H’   was   declared   as   the   exclusive

property of the Smt. K.C. Saroja.  The judgment and decree of

the   trial   Court   came   to   be   challenged   in   the   regular   first

appeal   before   the   High   Court   by   the   present   appellants   in

RFA No. 347/1998 and RFA No. 922/2001 was filed by the

defendants­respondents   against   the   self­same   impugned

judgment. The High Court after hearing the parties and on

reappraisal of the evidence while affirming the finding of fact

in reference to the registered Will Exhibit­D2 dated 16.6.1962

of the testator held that the respondents have established the

due execution of the Will as required under Section 68 of the

Evidence Act.  But while answering the question in reference

to the 1/10th share of the plaintiff no.2 in the undivided share

of the testator in the joint family properties schedule ‘A’ to ‘E’,

took note of Section 30 read with explanation of the Hindu

Succession  Act, 1956  and held that a coparcener derives a

right   to   dispose   of   his   undivided  share  in   Mitakshara  joint

family property by “Will” or any testamentary disposition i.e.

by virtue of law and accordingly reversed the finding recorded

by   the   learned   trial   Court   holding   1/10th  share   of   the

2
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

appellants/plaintiffs in the schedule of the properties referred

in ‘A’ to ‘E’.  

2. Mr.   Girish   Ananthamurthy,   learned   counsel   for   the

appellants has tried to persuade this Court that the finding

which has been recorded in reference to execution of the Will

of   the   testator   Exhibit­D2   dated   16.6.1962   appears   to   be

suspicious   for   the   reasons   that   the   testator   Patel   Hanume

Gowda died on 6.2.1965 and the registered Will Exhibit­D2

dated 16.6.1962 has not seen the light of the day until filing

of the suit by the present appellants/plaintiffs on 16.1.1976

and the testator was unwell during the period the Exhibit­D2

was   scribed   and   further   submitted   that   there   appears   no

reason/justification   for   the   testator   to   have   a   complete

exclusion of one branch of the family i.e. the daughter from

his   second   marriage   from  the  schedule  of  properties  of  the

testator falling in schedule ‘A’ to ‘H’ which indisputedly was

either the joint family property or the self­acquired property

of the testator.  

3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that

even if the testator could have bequeathed his share in the

undivided   joint   family   properties   through   a   registered   Will

3
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

dated   16.6.1962   still   the   independent   share   of   the

appellants/plaintiffs as  a member of the family in the joint

family properties could not have been divested and that is an

apparent error which has been committed by the High Court

and needs interference of this Court. 

4. None appeared for the respondents despite service.

5. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants and with

his assistance perused the record and we find no error in the

concurrent   finding   of   fact   as   recorded   by   the   learned   trial

Court and affirmed by the High Court holding the properties

schedule   ‘A’   to   ‘E’   belong   to   joint   family   properties   and

property ‘F’ & ‘G’ are self­acquired properties of the testator

and property schedule ‘H’ was exclusively of Smt. K.C. Saroja.

The suspicious circumstances highlighted by the appellants

with   reference   to   the   Will   Exhibit­D2   dated   16­6­1962,   a

concurrent finding of fact has been recorded holding that the

defendants were able to establish due execution of the Will as

required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act and we find no

reason to disturb the same. 

6. The   submission  of  the learned counsel in reference to

1/10th  share   of   the   appellants/plaintiffs   in   the   undivided

4
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

share   of   the   testator   in  joint  family  properties  identified as

schedule ‘A’ to ‘E’, we are unable to accept the contention for

the   reason   that   the   Will   Exhibit   D­2   was   executed   on

16.6.1962 and the testator died on 6.2.1965, subsequent to

the coming into force of the Act, 1956.   It is true that prior to

coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, no coparcener

could   dispose   of   whole   or   any   portion   of   his   undivided

coparcenary interest by Will but by virtue of Section 30 of the

Act read with explanation, a coparcener derives his right to

dispose   of   his   undivided   share   in   Mitakshara   joint   family

property by Will or any testamentary disposition i.e. by virtue

of law.  The said provision reads thus:­

“Testamentary succession 

30.(1)    Any   Hindu   may   dispose   of   by   will   or   other

testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of
being   so   disposed   of   by   him,   in   accordance   with   the
provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or any other
law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus. 
Explanation: The interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara
coparcenary   property   or   the   interest   of   a   member   of   a
tarwad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru in the property of
the   tarwad,   tavazhi,   illom,   kutumba   or   kavaru   shall,
notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   this   Act   or   in   any
other   law   for   the   time   being   in   force,   be   deemed   to   be
property   capable   of   being   disposed   of   by   him   or   by   her
within the meaning of this sub­section.

(2) For   the   removal   of   doubts   it   is   hereby   declared   that

nothing contained in sub­section (1) shall affect the right to
maintenance of any heir specified in the Schedule by reason
only   of   the   fact   that   under   a   will   or   other   testamentary
disposition   made   by   the   deceased   the   heir   has   been
deprived of a share in the property to which he or she would
have been entitled under this Act if the deceased had died
intestate.” 
5
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

7. Section   30   of   the   Act,   the   extract   of   which   has   been

referred to above, permits the disposition by way of Will of a

male   Hindu   in   a   Mitakshara   coparcenary   property.     The

significant   fact   which   may   be   noticed   is   that   while   the

legislature was aware of the strict rule against alienation by

way of gift, it only relaxed the rule in favour of disposition by

way of a Will of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary

property.     Therefore,   the   law   insofar   as   it   applies   to   joint

family property governed by the Mitakshara school, prior to

the amendment of 2005, when a male Hindu dies after the

commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 leaving at

the time of his death an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary

property,   his   interest   in   the   property   will   devolve   by

survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary.

An exception is contained in the explanation to Section 30 of

the   Act   making   it   clear   that   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 and in the given

facts and circumstances, the testator Patel Hanume Gowda

was   indeed   qualified   to   execute   a   Will   bequeathing   his

6
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

undivided   share   in   the   joint   family   properties   by   a   Will

Exhibit D­2 dated 16.6.1962.

8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants

in claiming independent share as a member of the family in

the joint family properties is without substance for the reason

that   the   appellants   have no  independent share in the joint

family   properties   and   their   share   could   be   devolved   in   the

undivided share of the testator in the joint family properties

and   since   the   testator   has   bequeathed   his   share/his

undivided coparcenary interest by Will dated 16.6.1962, no

further independent share could be claimed by the appellants

in   the   ancestral   properties   as   a   member   of   the   family   as

prayed for.

9. We   find   no   error   in   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court

which may call for interference, consequently the appeal fails

and is hereby dismissed.  No costs. 

10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

       ……………………………..J.
       (A.M. KHANWILKAR)

       ……………………………..J.
        (AJAY RASTOGI)
NEW DELHI
January 23, 2019.