C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar vs C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar and Ors. - Synopsis
Team SoOLEGAL 16 Aug 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 191 of 1952)

 

PETITIONER: C. N. ARUNACHALA MUDALIAR

                            

                      Vs.

 

RESPONDENT: C. A. MURUGANATHA MUDALIAR AND ANOTHER

 

BENCH: J. Mukherjea B.K.

 

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 14 OCTOBER 1953

 

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

In the present case, the testator made a will of his self-acquired properties or separate properties in favour of his son and some properties were given to the female members.

The original will state that “sons were to enjoy properties with absolute rights with power of alienations such as gift etc. from son to grandson on the death of grandfather the grandson demands the partition of properties in the hand of his Father (Defendant No1, which he acquired through a will).

 

ISSUE:

Whether the properties that defendant No1 got under the will of his father are to be regarded as ancestral or self-acquired property in his hand concerning his son?

 

CONTENTION:

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT (Son)-

The properties in the hand of defendant No.1 are ancestral and he had a right in them including the right to ask for partition and the father has begun to assert exclusive right over the JFP.

 

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT(Father)-

All the properties were self-acquired properties of his father and he got them under a will executed by his father.

 

JUDGEMENT:

Apex Court made the following observation:

1.      First of all, referred to Mitakshara Text, which laid down that father has independent power in the disposal of his self-acquired property and no one has the right to interfere with him while doing so. Mitakshara father is not only competent to sell his property to a stranger without the concurrence of his son but can also male a gift of such property to one of his sons, he can even make unequal distribution amongst his heirs.

2.      It is not possible to hold that property bequeathed or gifted to a son must necessarily be the ancestral property in the hand of the donee, in which his son would acquire interest, this is supported on twofold grounds: (a) Doctrine of equal Ownership, (Definition of self-acquisition). According to Mayne’s Hindu Law – The son can assert equal rights with the father only when grandfather property has devolved and become ancestral property in his hand. Otherwise, the father has a predominant interest in his self-acquired property.

3.      The testator is competent not only to determine the donee under the will but also the character of the interest that he takes in the property and would depend upon the terms of the grant.

4.      If there is no clear word describing the kind of interest which the donee is to take, the court would have to collect the intention of the donor from the language of the document taken along with surrounding circumstances.

5.      In the present case on reading the will it appears that the properties bequeathed were to be held by sons and will mention various other relations but no reference is made to son ‘son at all.

 

DECISION:

Hence this indicates that the testator desired that his son should have full ownership of the property as mentioned in the will.

 

According to Apex Court: Where the will expressly provide that property should be treated as ancestral property the son would take the property as ancestral concerning his male issue and in all other cases it would be a Separate property of legatee.

×

C2RM… To Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTH… To Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com