9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that she had succeeded to the properties of Muni Narayanappa as his sole legal heir. 3. In the said proceedings, the said S. Nagaraj filed I.A. No. I on 16-3-1998 seeking a temporary injunction to restrain Anjanamma from alienating/encumbering the properties, or withdrawing the amounts from the Banks, mentioned in the Schedule therein on the ground that the said properties were bequeathed to him under the Will dated 11-1-1998 by Muni Narayanappa. Item 'A' of the Schedule to the said application (I.A. No. I) is land and building in Khata No. 280/6-4B, Hennur, Bangalore with the running business of Cauvery Service Station. Item 'B' in the Schedule was the house in the occupation of Anjanamma and the building in the occupation of Sitaram Agencies. Item 'C' related to Bank balances/deposits. The learned Single Judge made an order on the said application on 18-6-1998 directing the respondent therein (An- janamma) to maintain status quo in regard to the properties until further orders. 4. Subsequently, the said Anjanamma died on 11-12-1998 and the appellant herein filed an application (I.A. No. VIII) for impleading himself as the respondent in Probate C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lienations or changes but more importantly by necessary implication from doing any acts whereby the situation vis-a-vis that property gets altered. It would be downright ridiculous to contend that the order only limits physical alienation because it would mean that a party can completely alter the situation by executing documents which would create rights in third parties and can still contend that merely because there is no physical alienation or change, that it is within the framework of the order. When a Court orders the main- tenancy of status quo, it necessarily implies a prohibition on the creation of new right, title or interest through the execution of any documents. If the need arises, it is open to the party to apply to the Court either for vacating or modifying the order or obtaining the sanction of the Court for doing any of the acts which the party desires to undertake. But in my considered view, the execution of a document by a party to a proceeding in rank defiance of an interim order cannot under any circumstances be construed as being outside the ambit and scope of that order. It only goes without saying that such a document even if executed would be wholly non est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition, 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. A combined reading of Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act shows that Anjanamma could dispose of by Will, only such property, which she could have alienated by her own act during her lifetime. On 15-9-1998 when the Will was executed, the order of status quo was in force which prohibited her from transferring the property and therefore she could not have transferred the property on 15-9-1998; and what could not be transferred by her on 15-9-1998 by her own act could not be disposed of under a Will on that date. Therefore the Will and bequest are invalid. 9. One Suguna has filed I.A. No. IV for impleading, in this appeal contending that she is the adopted daughter of Muni Narayanappa and the Will dated 15-9-1998 put forth by the appellant was not executed by Anjanamma and is a got up document; and that she has filed a suit for partition against Anjanamma in O.S. No. 2817 of 1998. It is not necessary to consider the claims of Sug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfer of property and testamentary succession. 13. The learned Single Judge proceeded on a wrong premise when he observed that execution of a Will by a testator devising his property, amounts to execution of a document creating new right, title or interest in a property and therefore execution of a Will violates the order of status quo. By execution of a Will, no right or title or interest is created in favour of anyone during the lifetime of the deceased. The first point is therefore answered in the negative. Re: Point (ii): 14. In this case, Nagaraj, the petitioner in Probate C.P. No. 8 of 1998, filed I.A. No. I seeking a temporary injunction restraining Anjanamma from alienating or encumbering the property or withdrawing the amount from the Bank, described in the Schedule to the application. There was no dispute that Anjanamma was in possession of the properties left by Muninarayanappa. The learned Single Judge merely directed Anjanamma to maintain status quo with regard to the properties. It was not clarified as to whether she was required to maintain status quo in regard to the possession of the property or title to the property. 15. No Court has the power to make a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the property by a Will. 18.1 For example, prior to the coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a Hindu widow could not dispose of by Will, any property inherited by her from her husband. Similarly, the holder of a mere life interest in a property could not make any Will in regard to the property as his or her interest is limited to his life and cannot enure to the benefit of anyone beyond her lifetime. 18.2 The bar contemplated in Explanation 1 to Section 59 is a bar or permanent inability under the personal law or a statute. It does not refer to a temporary prohibition arising from an injunction issued by a Court. Neither Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act nor Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act has, therefore, any relevance. 19. Both parts of point (ii) are therefore answered in the negative. A digression re: 'status quo' 20. We may at this juncture advert to the confusion caused by orders directing status quo. The parties are (or a party is) normally directed to maintain status quo in regard to a property, so that the position does not get altered or become irreversible pending decision in the suit or legal proceeding. The term 'st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , title, nature of property or some other aspect. Merely saying 'status quo' or 'status quo to be maintained' should be avoided. If in a suit for injunction, where plaintiff claims that he is in possession of the suit property and the defendant is attempting to interfere with his possession, and the defendant contends that he is in possession and petitioner was never in possession, if the Court merely directs status quo to be maintained by parties, without saying anything more, it Will cause confusion and in many cases even lead to breach of peace. On the basis of such order, the plaintiff would contend that he is in possession and he is entitled to continue in possession; and the defendant would contend that he is in possession and he is entitled to continue in possession. In such a case, if the Court wants to direct status quo, it should specify the context in which, or conditions subject to which, such status quo direction is issued. Conclusion: 23. The petitioner in Probate C.P. No. 8 of 1998 [respondent herein] seeks letters of administration in regard to alleged Will of Muni Narayanappa. That was challenged and resisted by Anjanamma, wife of Muninarayanappa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
