November 7, 2024
DU LLBProperty LawSemester 2

N. Ramaiah v. Nagaraj S. AIR 2001 Kant. 395

Case Summary

CitationN. Ramaiah v. Nagaraj S. AIR 2001 Kant. 395
Keywordssec 5 tpa, transfer of property , will
FactsA person died leaving behind his wife W, and his brother’s son, his nephew Br S. The nephew applied to the court for grant of letters of administration and claiming that the deceased had left his total properties in his favour under a Will. This claim was contested by the widow W, on the ground that the Will was a forged document, and she, as the legally wedded wife of the deceased was entitled to the total properties. The nephew sought and obtained a temporary injunction from the court to the effect, preventing or restraining the widow from transferring or alienating the suit properties till the case was decided by the court on merits. The widow was therefore asked to maintain the status quo with respect to these properties.
Six months later, the widow executed a Will of these properties in favour of her brother and died three months later. Her brother applied for substitution of his name in the place of the testatrix. Br S, objected to this substitution on the ground, that as the widow was specifically directed by the court not to transfer or alienate the property and was to maintain the status quo, a transfer of property, under a Will, so as to create rights in a third party would be against the order of the court and hence void, and such a transferee therefore would have no locus standi to be substituted in place of the deceased testatrix.
IssuesWhether execution of a Will amounts to a ‘transfer’ or alienation within the meaning of the TP Act?
Contentions
Law Points➢ A Will is not included as a mode of transfer within the meaning of s. 5, the legatee under this valid Will, would be entitled to step into the shoes of the testatrix, and continue the litigation.
➢ The court held that by making a Will, a testator neither changes title or possession in regard to a property.
➢ Neither is the nature or situation of the property altered, nor is anything removed or added to the property, by such Will.
➢ A transfer is a conveyance of an existing property by one living person to another (that is transfer inter vivos). On the other hand, a Will does not involve any transfer, nor effects any transfer inter vivos, but is a legal expression of the wishes and intention of a person in regard to his properties which he desires to be carried into effect after his death.
➢ The concept of transfer by a living person is wholly alien to a Will. When a person makes a Will, he provides for testamentary succession and does not transfer any property. While a transfer is irrevocable and comes into effect either immediately or on the happening of a specified contingency, a Will is revocable and comes into operation only after the death of the testator.
JudgementThe court therefore, held that a Will does not amount to a ‘transfer’ within the meaning of s. 5 of the TP Act, and allowed the legatee to pursue the litigation on behalf of the testatrix.
Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority

Full Case Details

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. – 2. The Appellant (N. Ramaiah) is the brother of one Anjanamma. The

said Anjanamma was the widow, and the respondent herein (S. Nagaraj) is the nephew (brother’s

son), of one Muni Narayanappa. The respondent herein (S. Nagaraj) filed Probate C.P.No.8/1998 for

grant of letters of administration in regard to a will dated 11-1-1998 said to have been executed by the

Muni Narayanappa. The said Will was contested by Anjanamma, widow of Muni Narayanappa, inter

alia on the grounds that the said Will was a got up document, 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.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 (IAI) 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 (Anjanamma) 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 (IA VIII) for impleading himself as the respondent in Prob CP. 8/1998 in place of the

deceased Anjanamma, by claiming to be the legatee under the registered Will dated, 15-9-1998 of the

said Anjanamma. He claimed that Anjanamma had bequeathed her properties described in the

schedule to her Will dated 15-9-1998 of the said Anjanamma. He claimed that Anjanamma had

bequeathed her properties described in the schedule to her Will dated 15-9-1998 to him and his

children and therefore he is one of the co-owners of the properties which were the subject matter of

Prob. C.P. 8/1998. Schedule `A’ to the said Will dated 15-9-1998 relates to property bearing Sy. No.

6/4B measuring I acre in Hennur Road. Bangalore with a residential house and a Petrol Bunk by name

Cauvery Service Station with all machineries, etc, Schedule B and C relate to amounts in Bank

Accounts and deposits.

5. It is stated that the property described in Schedule `A’ in the alleged will of Anjanamma is the

same as the properties described as Item A and B in the schedule to I.A.I. in Probate C.P. No. 8/1998,

which was the subject matter of the order of status quo.

6. The said application for impleading was resisted by S. Nagaraj. The learned single Judge,

accepting the objections, has dismissed the application for impleading, holding that the Will dated 15-

9-1998 was executed by Anjanamma, in breach and defiance of the order of status quo and therefore

non-est and of no legal consequence and will have to be ignored; and that the appellant who based his

right on such Will of Anjanamma, had no locus standi to apply for impleading and was not entitled to

come on record and contest the proceedings for letters of administration filed by the respondent, in

regard to the Will of Muni Narayanappa. The relevant portion of the order of the learned single Judge

is extracted below for ready reference:-

73

“4. Dealing with the objection regarding the execution of the alleged Will on 15-9-1998

during the pendency of the prohibitory order passed by this Court, applicant’s learned

counsel contended that the status quo order only restricted alienations and its is his

contention therefore that the order in question does not come in the way of the parties

executing documents which is different from alienation. To my mind, this is virtually legal

hairsplitting; when a Court passes an order directing the parties to maintain status quo, the

order is a blanket prohibitory order whereunder the parties would be precluded not only from

effecting alienations or changes but more importantly by necessary implication from doing

any acts whereby the situation vis-à-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 maintenance

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 because no right, title or interest of any type can flow from a document executed in

defiance of a prohibitory order of a Court because that document is virtually rendered

invalid. This to my mind is the essence of the issue that falls for determination before this

Court.”

7. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant in I. A. VIII in Prob. C. P. 8/1998, has filed this appeal

contending that an order of status quo in regard to a property did not bar the execution of a Will

bequeathing such property, nor affected the validity of the bequest made under such a Will; and that

on the death of Anjanamma, he ought to have been permitted to come on record to contest the alleged

Will of Muni Narayanappa.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the learned single

Judge, by putting forth the following contentions:

The Learned Single Judge had directed Anjanamma to maintain status quo in regard to

the properties; that the said order was passed on an application filed by the petitioner in Prob.

C.P. 8/1998, seeking a direction to Anjanamma that she should not alienate or encumber the

properties mentioned in the schedule to the said application. The order of status quo would

therefore mean that the Court had barred her from transferring or alienating the property in

any manner. Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines `transfer of property’ as

an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other

living persons. Having regard to the said definition, a bequest under a Will is nothing but a

`transfer of property in future’. By executing a Will dated 15-9-1998 bequeathing the

property in favour of the appellant and his children, Anjanamma effected a future transfer of

the property, thereby violating the order of status quo. Therefore her Will, as also the bequest

of the property thereunder, are invalid.

74

9. One Suguna has filed IA 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 documents; and that she has filed a suit for partition against

Anjanamma in O.S. No. 2817/1998. It is not necessary to consider the claims of Suguna in this

appeal. If she has any grievance she can get herself impleaded in Prob. C.P. 8/1998 or independently

challenge the will dated 15-9-1998. Hence IA IV for impleading has no merit and is rejected.

10. The rival contentions give rise to the following points for consideration:

(i) whether a bequest of a property under a will is a transfer of the property.

(ii) whether a direction to a party to maintain status quo in regard to a property,

prohibits him from making a testamentary disposition; and whether a Will made during the

operation of an order of status quo regarding a property, is void and non-est in so far as the

bequest relating to such property.

11. Transfer of property Act, 1882 (TP Act’) deals with transfers intervivos, that is, the act of a

living person, conveying a property in present or in future, to one or more living persons. The

provisions of TP Act are inapplicable to testamentary successions which are governed by Indian

Succession Act, 1925. Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act defines `Will’ as the legal

declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into

effect after his death.

12. The differences between a transfer and a Will are well recognised. A transfer is a conveyance

of an existing property by one living person to another (that is transfer intervivos). On the other hand,

a Will does not involve any transfer, nor effect any transfer intervivos, but is a legal expression of the

wishes and intention of a person in regard to his properties which he desires to be carried into effect

after his death. In other words, a Will regulates succession and provides for succession as declared by

it (testamentary succession) instead of succession as per personal law (non-testamentary Succession).

The concept of transfer by a living person is wholly alien to a Will. When a person makes a will, he

provides for testamentary succession and does not transfer any property. While a transfer is

irrevocable and comes into effect either immediately or on the happening of a specified contingency a

Will is revocable and comes into operation only after the death of the testator. Thus to treat a devise

under a will as a transfer of an existing property in future, is contrary to all known principles relating

to transfer 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 any one during the life time of

the deceased. The first point is therefore answered in the negative.

14. In this case, Nagaraj, the petitioner in Prob. C.P. No. 8 of 1998, filed IA-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.

75

15. No Court has the power to make an order, that too an interim order restraining an individual

from exercising his right to execute a will and thereby regulate succession on his death. A direction to

a party to maintain status quo in regard to a property does not therefore bar him from making a

testamentary disposition in regard to such property. By making a will the testator neither changes title

nor possession in regard to a property nor alters the nature or situation of the property nor removes or

adds anything to the property. In short the testator, by making a will does not alter the existing state of

things in regard to the property. It follows therefore that making of a will in regard to a property does

not violate an order of status quo in regard to such property, and consequently the testamentary

disposition is neither void nor voidable.

16. The prayer in Prob. C.P. No. 8of 1998 and the context in which the status quo order dated 18-

6-1998 was granted, while considering the interlocutory application, make it evident that the order

merely directed Anjanamma not to alienate or convey the property and did not prohibit her from

executing a will making a testamentary disposition in regard to the property.

23. The petitioner in Prob CP 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, by contending that she suceeded to the properties of Muninarayanappa. She died

and appellant claims to be the legatee in possession of the property which is claimed by the petitioner

in Prob C P No. 8 of 1998, under the will of Muninarayanappa. If the apellant is not permitted to

come on record, there will be no one to continue the contest put up by Anjanamma. We, therefore,

find that the appellant is a necessary party to the proceedings in Prob C.P. No. 8/1998.

24. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 6-1-1999 on I.A VIII in probate C.

P.No8/1998 is set aside. I. A. VIII in probate C. P. 8/1998 shall stand allowed.

Related posts

Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander RaiAIR 2003 SC 3044 : (2003) 6 SCC 675

vikash Kumar

Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah AIR 1955 SC 425

Arya Mishra

Suresh v. State of UP (2001) 3 SCC 673

Dharamvir S Bainda

Leave a Comment