- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Baliram Atmaram Kelapure v. Indirabai (Smt) And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Atma Ram died on 23-1-1971 leaving two wives, Janki Bai and Rama Bai. Through Janki Bai he had two children: Indira Bai (plaintiff) and Tatya (4th defendant). Through Rama Bai he had two sons: Krishna (1st defendant) and Baliram (2nd defendant).
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition, separate possession and profits. At the trial-court stage the relevant details are not provided in the opinion, but on first appeal the shares were fixed at: plaintiff 1/12, first defendant 5/12, and second defendant 6/12. The High Court subsequently modified these shares to: plaintiff 1/12, first defendant 7/12, and second defendant 4/12, after accepting a Will alleged to have been executed by Rama Bai in favour of the first defendant.
The second defendant, whose share was reduced, preferred the present appeal challenging the High Court’s modification.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in accepting an unadjudicated Will alleged by the first defendant and, on that basis, altering the shares fixed by the first appellate court.
Arguments of the Parties
First Defendant's Arguments
- Relied on an alleged Will said to have been executed by his mother, Rama Bai, bequeathing her entire interest in the joint property solely to him, thereby entitling him to a larger share (7/12).
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found that the High Court erred in modifying the shares on the basis of the alleged Will because:
- The truth and validity of the Will were never put in issue in the suit or in the legal-representative application filed after Rama Bai’s death.
- No finding had been recorded by any court on the genuineness or legal validity of the document.
- Both sons, Defendants 1 and 2, had in fact been impleaded as legal representatives of Rama Bai, indicating that the Will had not been accepted judicially.
- Since the Will seeks to alter the normal rules of succession, the burden of proving its authenticity lay squarely on the first defendant, a burden he had not discharged in the present proceedings.
Consequently, the High Court’s acceptance of the Will without adjudication was held to be unjustified.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and restored the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, thereby reinstating the shares as: plaintiff 1/12, first defendant 5/12, and second defendant 6/12. The second appeal was allowed; no order as to costs.
Implications: While the partition shares revert to those fixed by the first appellate court, the Court expressly left open the first defendant’s right to institute a separate suit or proceeding to prove the truth and validity of the alleged Will. Any future determination of that issue could alter the respective shares between Defendants 1 and 2, but until such adjudication the restored shares govern. The decision sets no new precedent beyond reinforcing the principle that an unproved Will cannot be relied upon to vary statutory succession in a partition suit.
B.P Jeevan Reddy, J.— Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. Second defendant is the appellant. Suit for partition, separate possession and profits instituted by the plaintiff-first respondent has been decreed by the appellate court with the following shares: Plaintiff 1/12, first defendant 5/12 and second defendant 6/12. The High Court has modified the said shares in the following manner: Plaintiff 1/12, first defendant 7/12 and second defendant 4/12. Since his share has been reduced by the High Court, the present appeal has been preferred by the second defendant.
3. One Atma Ram, who died on 23-1-1971, had two wives — Janki Bai and Rama Bai. Plaintiff Indira Bai and the fourth defendant Tatya are the children by Janki Bai. Whereas first defendant Krishna and second defendant Baliram are the sons through Rama Bai. Rama Bai was alive when the suit was instituted and she was impleaded as the third defendant. Pending the suit Rama Bai died and Defendants 1 and 2 — her sons — have been impleaded as her legal representatives. This was done notwithstanding the plea of the first defendant Krishna that Rama Bai has executed a Will bequeathing her entire interest in his favour alone. In this appeal we are not concerned with Tatya but only with the shares of the plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2. Here again the plaintiff's share at 1/12 is not in dispute. The dispute really is between Defendants 1 and 2. The appellate court had determined the shares of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, keeping aside the Will relied upon by the first defendant. On the other hand, the High Court has accepted the Will as true and accordingly modified the shares of these two defendants as 7/12 and 4/12 respectively.
4. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in modifying the shares as aforesaid. Firstly, the Will said to have been executed by Rama Bai in favour of the first defendant was not in issue in the suit nor in the LR application and no finding with respect to its truth and validity has been recorded. Notwithstanding the said Will, both the brothers Defendants 1 and 2 were impleaded as the LRs of Rama Bai. Moreover, since the first defendant is seeking to alter the normal rule of succession by putting forward the said Will, the burden lies upon him to establish the truth and validity of the Will.
5. For the above reasons, we set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and restore the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the first defendant to establish the truth and validity of the said Will in an appropriate suit/proceeding in which event, it is obvious, the inter se shares as between the present Defendants 1 and 2 shall depend upon the finding of the competent court regarding the truth and validity of the Will.
6. The second appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No costs.
Alert