9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the 1942 and 1950 Wills. 2. Legal effect of the 1955 settlement. 3. Application of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 4. Plea of limitation and adverse possession. Summary: 1. Validity of the 1942 and 1950 Wills: The Division Bench found that the Will dated April 10, 1942, made by Ram Nath, was true, valid, and effective. The Will dated September 26, 1950, put forward by Defendant Nos.2 to 5, was not proved to have been executed by Ram Nath. The interest created in Satyawati under the 1942 Will was a life estate, not a widow's estate, and could not be surrendered. The Will contemplated that the Doctor's Lane house would devolve upon the legal heirs of the testator on Satyawati's death, which included the son and daughters by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 2. Legal Effect of the 1955 Settlement: The settlement dated January 27, 1955, between Satyawati and the first defendant, where Satyawati surrendered her life interest in the Doctor's Lane house in favor of the first defendant, was held valid. The settlement did not amount to a transfer but was a compromise of conflicting claims. The first defendant became the absolute owner of the Doctor's Lane house, subject to Satyawati's right of residence in the first floor. 3. Application of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: By operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the right of residence given to Satyawati in the first floor of the Doctor's Lane house ripened into absolute ownership. The plaintiff could rely on Section 14 despite not expressly pleading it, as the facts established its applicability. Satyawati became the absolute owner of the first floor, and on her death, it devolved upon her son and daughters in equal shares. 4. Plea of Limitation and Adverse Possession: The plea of limitation raised by the defendant-appellant was rejected. The suit was filed within the limitation period, and the adverse possession plea failed as it was not established that the possession was adverse to Satyawati or the plaintiff. The sale deed executed by the second defendant in favor of Defendant Nos.3 to 5 was valid only for the ground floor of the Doctor's Lane house. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 were entitled to the first defendant's 1/5th share in the first floor, while the remaining 4/5th share was allotted to the plaintiff and Defendant Nos.6 to 8. Conclusion: The Supreme Court modified the decree of the Division Bench, affirming the sale deed's validity for the ground floor and allocating shares in the first floor accordingly. The appeals were allowed in part, with no order as to costs.
|
