Dismissed

Muraleedharan v. Varghese

Kerala HC8 Aug 2012RSA/429/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenged findings regarding the declaration of civil death of a missing party, the validity of a will, and possession rights. The court upheld the civil death finding and will validity by accepting co-scribe as secondary witness, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; Respondent I entitled to recover possession of suit property based on valid assignment deed.

Muraleedharan Vs Varghese — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/17TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

RSA.No. 429 of 2005 ( )

¶6

AS.61/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, FAST TRACK-II, ALAPPUZHA OS.60/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 4::

¶8

MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, VALATHATTU CHIRAYIL, PAZHAVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA EAST VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

REMA DEVI, D/O. MADHAVAN, VALATHATTU CHIRAYIL, PAZHAVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA EAST VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN

¶11

SRI.SUDHEENDRAN. K.Y. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.R.REMA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/2ND PLAINTIFF AND 2ND DEFENDANT::

¶13

VARGHESE, S/O.ABRAHAM, PUTHEN PARAMBIL HOUSE, VADACKAL MURI, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

RAVI (2ND DEFENDANT), S/O. MADHAVAN, NOW RESIDING AT PULIMPARAMPIL (SARIGA) PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR - FOR R1 ADV. SMT.LAYA SIMON - FOR R1

¶16

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶18

R.S.A. No.429 of 2005

¶19

-------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2012.

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The following substantial questions of law are framed for a

¶22

decision:

¶23

i. Are the courts below justified in granting recovery of possession of property without establishing right and title of the property?

¶24

ii. Are the courts below justified in declaring the civil death of 'Padmanabhan' without producing any evidence on that point?

¶25

iii. Are the courts below justified in finding in favour of validity of the Will without complying with the provisions of Sec.68 of the Evidence Act and without having two attesting witness in the Will?

¶26

iv. Are the courts below justified in granting relief to the legal representative of the 1^st plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the appeal, in respect of the plaint schedule property?

¶27

The above questions arise in the second appeal brought by the defendants 1 and 4 from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court, Fast Track-II, Alappuzha in A.S.No.61 of 2003 confirming judgment and decree of the Additional Sub Court, Alappuzha in O.S.No.60 of 2001.

¶28

The 1^st respondent is an assignee from the 1^st plaintiff (who died

¶29

¶30

RSA No.429/2005

¶31

pending the appeal before the first appellate court). According to the 1^st plaintiff and the 1^st respondent, of the 23 ½ cents referred to in the plaint schedule, three cents belonged to the 1^st plaintiff as per Ext.A7, assignment deed. The remaining 20 ½ cents belonged to the late Padmanabhan with whom the 1^st plaintiff had Ext.A1, agreement to live together. The said Padmanabhan, a retired Sub Inspector was found missing from 06.06.1993 and since then his whereabouts are not known by those who would naturally have heard of him had he been alive. Thus, it is claimed by the 1^st plaintiff and the 1^st respondent that Padmanabhan should be presumed dead. The 1^st plaintiff claimed title over the suit property as per Ext.A2, Will No.39 of 1979 dated 10.08.1979 (allegedly) executed by the said Padmanabhan. Under that impression, the 1^st plaintiff executed Exts.A3 and A4, assignment deeds dated 05.11.1996 and 29.11.1996 in favour of the 1^st respondent conveying the 23 ½ cents and the two buildings referred to in the plaint schedule.

¶32

In the meantime, the 1^st appellant filed O.S.No.262 of 1996 against the 1^st plaintiff and her power of attorney holder for a decree for prohibitory injunction claiming that the 1^st appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The 1^st respondent, on the strength of Exts.A3 and A4, assignment deeds filed O.S.No.42 of 1997, also for a decree for prohibitory injunction against the 1^st appellant and others trespassing into the said property. The said suits were tried and disposed of by Ext.A6, judgment. The trial court found that the 1^st appellant is in possession of the suit property and decreed O.S.No.262 of 1996. O.S. No.42 of 1997 was dismissed. Thereafter the 1^st plaintiff and the 1^st respondent filed O.S.No.60 of 2001 for a declaration regarding the civil death of

¶33

¶34

RSA No.429/2005

¶35

the said Padmanabhan, for a declaration of the title of the 1^st plaintiff and the 1^st respondent in the suit property and for its recovery of possession from the appellants and other defendants.

¶36

The appellants and other defendants denied the due execution of Ext.A2, Will dated 10.08.1979. They also denied the allegation that Padmanabhan is not heard of since 06.06.1993. At any rate, they claimed title over the property pursuant to the civil death of the said Padmanabhan.

¶37

The trial court found in favour of the plea of the 1^st plaintiff and the 1^st respondent that Padmanabhan is not heard of since 06.06.1993 and hence his death must be presumed. The trial court also found in favour of the due execution of Ext.A2, Will dated 10.08.1979. Accordingly, the 1^st plaintiff was found to be the title holder of the suit property. So far as Exts.A3 and A4 are concerned, the trial court did not accept the same to the extent it concerned the 20 ½ cents which belonged to Padmanabhan obviously as those documents were executed even before the expiry of the period of seven years referred to in Sec.108 of the Evidence Act (for short, “the Act”). The 1^st plaintiff was allowed to recover the possession of 20 ½ cents on the strength of Ext.A2, Will while, the 1^st respondent was allowed to recover possession of the 3 cents.

¶38

Appellants/defendants 1 and 4 challenged that judgment and decree in A.S.No.61 of 2003. While the appeal was pending, the 1^st respondent filed I.A.No.1102 of 2004 under Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) to record him as legal representative of the deceased 1^st plaintiff on the strength of assignment deed No.2974 of 2003 dated 31.07.2003 executed by the deceased 1^st plaintiff in favour of the 1^st respondent

¶39

¶40

RSA No.429/2005

¶41

concerning the 20 ½ cents which originally belonged to Padmanabhan. That application was allowed and the 1^st respondent was recorded as the legal representative of the deceased 1^st plaintiff. The 1^st respondent also filed I.A.No.1150 of 2004 under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code to receive in evidence assignment deed No.2974 of 2003 (original). I.A.No.1150 of 2003 was allowed but, the document is not seen exhibited in evidence. The first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

¶42

The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the findings entered by the courts below as regards the civil death of Padmanabhan and due execution of Ext.A2 are not correct. According to the learned counsel, Ext.A2 cannot be taken as a Will since it is not attested by two witnesses as required under Sec.63(c) of the Indian Succession Act (for short, “the Succession Act”). It is also contended by the learned counsel that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 cannot be accepted.

¶43

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent has contended that the fact of missing of Padmanabhan from 06.06.1993 is admitted by the appellants as well and hence, the finding that there is civil death of the said Padmanabhan does not call for interference. The learned counsel submits that Ext.A2, Will is executed and attested in accordance with Sec.63(c) of the Succession Act. It is also contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 who gave evidence regarding the due execution and attestation of Ext.A2.

¶44

The first question for decision is whether the finding of the courts below regarding the civil death of Padmanabhan is correct? It is not very much in dispute that though not legally wedded the 1^st plaintiff was living with

¶45

¶46

RSA No.429/2005

¶47

Padmanabhan as his wife legalising their living together by Ext.A1. As regards the missing of Padmanabhan from 06.06.1993, evidence is given by PW2, the 1^st respondent and DW1. Ext.A6 is the copy of common judgment in O.S.Nos.262 of 1996 and 42 of 1997. Ext.A6 shows that the 1st appellant also proceeded on the basis that Padmanabhan was missing from 06.06.1993 onwards and not heard of since then.

¶48

Under Sec.108 of the Act, when the question is whether a person is alive or dead and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it.

¶49

In this case, the 1^st appellant who is a legal heir of Padmanabhan has asserted in O.S.No.262 of 1996 that Padmanabhan was missing from 06.06.1993 and was not heard of since then. He has given evidence as DW1 to that effect. Thus missing of Padmanabhan from 06.06.1993 and his whereabouts being not heard of by those who would have heard of him had he been alive is practically admitted by the appellants as well. In that view of the matter, the trial and first appellate courts were right in holding in favour of the civil death of Padmanabhan.

¶50

Then the question is whether Ext.A2 is a Will and, its due execution and attestation are proved?. Though the appellants have a contention that the deceased 1^st plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of Padmanabhan and that fact is not very much in dispute, that is of no consequence if Ext.A2, Will is upheld. For, the 1^st plaintiff claimed right over the 20 ½ cents which belonged to Padmanabhan by virtue of Ext.A2.

¶51

¶52

RSA No.429/2005

¶53

It is argued by the learned counsel that in Ext.A2, there is only one attesting witness (PW2), PW3 being only the scribe. It is contended that there is no evidence to show that PW3 signed Ext.A2 with intend to attest the due execution of that instrument.

¶54

I have perused Ext.A2, Will dated 10.08.1979 (Padmanabhan was found missing from 06.06.1993). Ext.A2 is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act. It is seen from Ext.A2 that after the body of the said instrument, it is written as under:

¶55

ല�സനസ� .................. ജന�ര�നന ന�യര (PW3)“

¶56

I must notice that PW3 is described as the second witness to the instrument. It is only that PW3 has also been described as the scribe of the document.

¶57

There is nothing wrong in a scribe being the attesting witness. The only thing is that the intention of the scribe to sign the document as an attesting witness must be established. In this case, apart from the document itself there is evidence of PW3 that he signed the document as an attesting witness as well. Therefore, the contention that Ext.A2 does not comply with the requirement of Sec.63(c) of Succession Act cannot be upheld.

¶58

¶59

RSA No.429/2005

¶60

What remains is the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. As aforesaid, they have given evidence regarding the due execution and attestation of Ext.A2. I must also notice that Ext.A2 dated 10.08.1999 while, admittedly Padmanabhan was found missing only from 06.06.1993.

¶61

Though, registration by itself is no substitute for proof of due execution and attestation of the Will, that also would support the evidence regarding the due execution. For, the registering authority before deciding to register the document has to comply with certain statutory formalities including, ascertaining from the executant whether the document was so executed. Secs.59 and 60 of the Registration Act provide for the registering authority giving his endorsement on the document that the document is duly registered and that endorsement being admissible in evidence to prove that the formalities required for registration are complied.

¶62

Ext.A1 shows that the deceased 1^st plaintiff was living with Padmanabhan as his wife. It is in the above circumstances that Padmanabhan executed Ext.A2, Will bequeathing the 20 ½ cents belonging to him to the 1^st plaintiff. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 does not reveal any suspicious circumstances surrounding the due execution and attestation of Ext.A2. In the above circumstances, the courts below, on facts and evidence found in favour of due execution and attestation of Ext.A2.

¶63

¶64

RSA No.429/2005

¶65

On hearing the learned counsel on both sides, going through the judgments under challenge and considering the evidence, I do not find reason to interfere with the findings entered by the courts below regarding the civil death of Padmanabhan and the due execution and attestation of Ext.A2.

¶66

Though, the trial court found and the first appellate court confirmed that Exts.A3 and A4 to the extent it concerned the 20 ½ cents which belonged to Padmanabhan is not valid (for the reason that those documents were executed before the expiry of seven years referred to in Sec.108 of the Act), the 1^st plaintiff executed assignment deed No.2974 of 2003 dated 31.07. 2003 (after the period of seven years from the date on which Padmanabhan was found missing on 06.06.1993). That document was produced in the first appellate court with a request (I.A.No.1150 of 2004) to receive that document as additional evidence. That application was allowed as aforesaid but, the document is not seen marked. Hence the assignment deed No.2974 of 2003 is marked as Ext.A10 on the side of the 1^st respondent.

¶67

Ext.A10 shows that the 20½ cents which belonged to the Padmanabhan and acquired by the deceased 1^st plaintiff as per Ext.A2, Will along with the three cents which belonged to her as per Ext.A7, was assigned to the 1^st respondent. Hence by virtue of Ext.A10, the 1^st respondent is entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the appellants and other defendants.

¶68

¶69

RSA No.429/2005

¶70

The substantial questions of law are answered as above.

¶71

Resultantly,

¶72

i. The Second Appeal is dismissed.

¶73

ii. It is made clear that by virtue of Ext.A10 the 1^st respondent

¶74

can recover possession of the suit property from the appellants and other defendants who are in possession of the suit property.

¶75

ii. Parties are directed to suffer their costs.

¶76

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶77

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶78

cks

Muraleedharan v. Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muraleedharan v. Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sureshkumar Vs Vijayakumari and Others

K.P.Gopinathan Pillai Vs B.Usha

Thankam Ramachandran Vs Raghuraman

Abdul Majeed Fazil(Faziludeen) Vs Ashya Ummal Fathimathummal

Sujatha B.Nair Vs Sukumari Amma

Purushothaman Vs Chellamma