2018 (1) TMI 1577 - SC - Indian Laws

Partition of suit property - whether partition deed dated March 15, 1971 is valid in law, inasmuch as, this issue will have bearing on the remaining case? - HELD THAT - It would be pertinent to point out that even after holding that during the lifetime of their father sons cannot claim partition of the properties as per the said customary Hindu Law, the High Court has accepted the fact that the father is still enabled to distribute and partition his property between the children and the descendants. As per the High Court, this can be done either by instruments inter vivos or by Will and further that the settlement or Will must comply with the formalities, conditions and rules laid down for donations inter vivos and Wills and the partitions made by donation inter vivos must include only those properties which the donor then possesses. In respect of this assertion, the High Court has referred to Article Nos. 1075 and 1076 of the French Code. The High Court has observed that the father can distribute or partition the property between the children and the descendants only by gift or family settlement between the parties themselves. According to it, the plaintiffs had not set up their claim on that basis as they did not rely on Articles 1075, 1076 or 1077 of the French Code in respect of their claim. Hindu Succession Act would not govern, even if it has been enforced in the territory of Puducherry in the year 1963. The High Court has dealt with this aspect in detail in its judgment, as pointed out above, and has come to the conclusion that insofar as Christians are concerned, old Customary Law continue to apply. No attempt was made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant to dislodge the same. Even otherwise, it is the Customary Hindu Law which has been applied to decide the case which approach is perfectly justified. Therefore, the main issue is as to whether such a partition deed could be executed by Oubegaranadin in respect of the properties of which he was the absolute owner. It is to be borne in mind that the properties in question had fallen in the share of Oubegaranadin on the basis of partition deed dated March 23, 1959 between Oubegaranadin and his brothers. As on that date, French Code governed the field as per which customary Hindu Law applies. It is not disputed that Oubegaranadin had become the absolute owner of the property in question - The High Court was, therefore, right in observing that such a partition deed has to be construed either a gift deed or family settlement. However, the claim of the plaintiffs was not on that basis. It was not stated anywhere as to whether necessary formalities, conditions or rules laid down for donation inter vivos or gift so as to enforce said document were complied with in the absence of any pleadings, obviously no evidence was produced to this effect. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Partition Deed dated March 15, 1971.
2. Validity of the decree dated June 24, 1974, nullifying the Partition Deed.
3. Legitimacy of the sale deeds executed by Oubegaranadin and his sons (respondent nos. 3 to 5).
4. Applicability of French Civil Law and Customary Hindu Law in Puducherry.
5. Compliance with procedural requirements under Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Partition Deed dated March 15, 1971:
The Partition Deed dated March 15, 1971, executed by Oubegaranadin, was contested on the grounds that under customary Hindu Law in Puducherry, sons cannot claim partition of their father's property during his lifetime. The High Court noted that while the father can distribute or partition his property, it must comply with the formalities, conditions, and rules laid down for donations inter vivos and wills. The court concluded that the Partition Deed was not a valid document as it did not meet these requirements, and the claim was not based on Articles 1075, 1076, or 1077 of the French Code.

2. Validity of the Decree dated June 24, 1974:
The decree obtained by Oubegaranadin in O.S. No. 70 of 1974 nullified the Partition Deed and declared him the absolute owner of the suit property. The High Court upheld this decree, stating that it was valid as no prejudice had been caused to the minors (respondent nos. 3 to 5) and the decree was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, noting that the decree was not challenged on the grounds of procedural impropriety under Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC.

3. Legitimacy of the Sale Deeds:
The sale deeds executed by Oubegaranadin and his sons were contested. The High Court held that since Oubegaranadin was the absolute owner of the property, he had the right to sell it. The sale deeds executed by respondent nos. 3 to 5 in favor of the appellant were also upheld as valid, as they were executed to meet family debts and out of necessity. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's findings and dismissed the appeal.

4. Applicability of French Civil Law and Customary Hindu Law:
The High Court determined that the family of Oubegaranadin, being Christians, was governed by customary Hindu Law in Puducherry. The court noted that the French Code was applicable to Puducherry, and customary Hindu Law continued to apply to Christians in matters of succession and property rights. The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the Hindu Succession Act was not applicable to Christians, and the customary Hindu Law was correctly applied.

5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC:
The appellant argued that the decree in O.S. No. 70 of 1974 was not binding as Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC had not been followed. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the sons had no right to demand a share in the property during their father's lifetime under customary Hindu Law. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the procedural requirements of Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC were not relevant in this case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, concluding that the Partition Deed dated March 15, 1971, was invalid, the decree dated June 24, 1974, was valid, and the sale deeds executed by Oubegaranadin and his sons were legitimate. The applicability of customary Hindu Law in Puducherry was affirmed, and the procedural requirements under Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC were deemed inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed.