HINDU LAW – SUCCESSION – SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY OF DECEASED FATHER – DEATH INTESTATE – DEVOLUTION UNDER SECTION 8, HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 – CLASS I HEIRS ENTITLED EQUALLY

A. HINDU LAW – SUCCESSION – SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY OF DECEASED FATHER – DEATH INTESTATE – DEVOLUTION UNDER SECTION 8, HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 – CLASS I HEIRS ENTITLED EQUALLY

It was admitted that items 1 to 5 of plaint ‘A’ schedule lands and the ‘B’ schedule house were the self-acquisitions of late Vathada Sriranganatha Lakshmanaswamy, who died intestate on 04-03-1979 (paras 21, 23).
Held: On intestacy, the property devolves equally upon his Class-I heirs, namely the widow (D-1) and children (plaintiff, D-2, D-5, D-6, D-7) (paras 21, 23, 49).
Trial Court's contrary allotment based on a disputed Will was erroneous and liable to be set aside (paras 32–33).

B. WILLS – PROOF – SECTIONS 63, INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT & 68, EVIDENCE ACT – PROPOUNDER MUST PROVE – MERE EXHIBITING NOT ENOUGH – WILL NOT PROVED – NO TESTAMENTARY DEVISE OF SHARE

Ex.B-45 (alleged Will of D-1/mother) was relied on to claim exclusive bequest of her share. Held:

1. Will was not proved according to Sections 63 and 68;

2. Propounder not examined;

3. No attesting witness examined except D.W.5 (interested witness, husband of beneficiary) (paras 26–31);

4. No pleadings asserting existence of Will;

5. D.W.1 (testatrix) testified in 1993 but made no reference to executing a Will (para 30).

Held: Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances; not proved; no devolution in favour of either plaintiff or D-7; intestate succession applies (paras 28–32; Rani Purnima Debi applied).

C. JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY – SELF-ACQUISITIONS – SALE BY ONE COPARCENER – AGREEMENTS OF SALE – BINDING ONLY ON EXECUTANT – NO CONSENT OF OTHER CO-SHARERS – NO LEGAL NECESSITY PROVED

Defendant No.2, claiming to act as managing member, executed Exs.B-20 & B-35 (1980 agreements of sale) in favour of D-8 and D-11 for item No.1 of plaint A schedule.
Held:

1. Suit property was self-acquired property of deceased father, not joint family property (paras 21, 42);

2. Defendant No.2 failed to prove legal necessity, family debts, or sale proceeds used for marriage expenses (paras 37–41);

3. No proof that other sharers received consideration (para 43);

4. Purchasers knew plaintiff had a share but did not secure his signature (paras 43–44);

5. Ryot passbooks (Ex.B-44) and land tax receipts do not create title without a registered sale deed (para 45).

Held: Agreements valid only inter se executant (D-2) and purchasers; not binding on other co-sharers (paras 46–47).

D. JOINT FAMILY – MANAGER – POWER TO ALIENATE – LEGAL NECESSITY – BURDEN ON ALIENEE – NOT DISCHARGED

For an alienation by manager of Hindu family to bind non-consenting members, alienees must prove (i) manager's status, (ii) existence of legal necessity, and (iii) inquiry made in good faith.
Held: Defendant No.2 not proved to be manager; existence of debts not proved; no evidence of necessity or bona-fide enquiry by purchasers (paras 38–45).
Therefore, alienation does not bind shares of other heirs.

E. PARTITION – PRELIMINARY DECREE – CORRECTION BY APPELLATE COURT – EQUAL DIVISION INTO FIVE SHARES

Trial Court wrongly allotted double share to D-7 on basis of unproved Will (Ex.B-45).
Held: Partition must be made into five equal shares among plaintiff and D-2, D-5, D-6, D-7 (paras 49, 51).
Decree modified accordingly.

F. MESNE PROFITS – ORDER 20 RULE 12 CPC – CONSEQUENCE OF MODIFIED PRELIMINARY DECREE – APPEAL BECOMES INFRACTUOUS

In view of setting aside the Trial Court’s preliminary decree on share allocation, the consequential order in I.A.No.136/2000 (mesne profits) requires fresh determination.
Held: A.S.No.769/2009 (mesne profits appeal) is infructuous (para 48, 52).

G. ALIENATION BY MANAGING MEMBER – PASSBOOKS, TAX RECEIPTS – NO PRESUMPTION OF TITLE – ONLY REGISTERED SALE DEED CONVEYS TITLE

Held: Ryot passbooks (Ex.B-44) and land tax receipts (Exs.B-42, B-43) do not confer title; alienee acquires no rights absent registered conveyance (para 45).

H. RESULT – APPEALS DISPOSED

1. A.S.No.1412 of 1998 (purchasers’ appeal) – Dismissed (para 50).

2. A.S.No.1479 of 1999 (plaintiff’s appeal) – Partly allowed; partition modified into five equal shares; other findings of Trial Court upheld (para 51).

3. A.S.No.769 of 2009 (mesne profits) – Dismissed as infructuous (para 52).

4. Interim orders vacated; pending I.As closed.