Family consists of parents, 4 sons (let’s assume A B C D) & 2 daughters by name “X” and “Y” in which “X” got married & daughter “Y” left without married. Properties earned by the parents are self-acquired & so, in the year 1984 registered will was executed by parents & given share to 4 sons and “Y” since she was not married but no share given to married daughter “X”. Since 1984 “Will” not covered all properties, in 1994, made one more “Will” & given share to elder son “D” and Married daughter “X”. However, before the lifetime of our parents, the said properties were mutated in revenue records into the names of respective 4 sons as per the “Will” executed in the year 1984 during the year 1988-89 and parents actually expired in the year 2002. In the year 2004, unmarried daughter “Y” passed away and to divide her share of properties the matter went before court by 4 sons. Later on, unmarried daughter “X” was also impleaded in the suit to claim share & finally the suit ended with compromise & all the 4 sons and married daughter “X” got share equally & also “X” admitted the knowledge of “Registered Will” of 1984 properties. However, as per the second “Will” of 1994, the married daughter did not taken share of her but executed the right relinquishment deed in favour of elder son “D” & in turn “X” got letter of agreement of unregistered document from “D” in respect of one of the property which he got from registered Will of 1984 but it is not a right relinquishment deed made by “D” in favour of “X”. However, property got transferred into her name as per unregistered deed only for time being. Now, “X” daughter has filed a case unlawfully for partition & claiming that all the properties are joint family properties and she got rights equally but not included the property which got from “D”. Questions, 1. The properties were mutated into their name by said 5 children’s as per the “Will” of 1984 during 1998-99’s but before the death of parents and such transfer of properties before demises of parents are valid or invalid. 2. Ms. “X” has not included the property received from Mr. “D” through unregistered document as said above. So now Mr. “D” being a defendant can include the said property which was mutated by Ms. “X” into her name without support of any registered document. 3. In the Compromise case of above said, Ms. “X” has already admitted the “Registered Will” of 1984 and also given consent for compromise petition along with taking share in the “Y” properties after her death but now “X” is unlawfully claiming that the all properties are joint family properties without including compromise suit property and one more property received from “D” as said above. Thus, can we file application under order Rule 7 for rejection of plaint based on res judicata or any other grounds for rejection of plaint or need to complete the suit proceedings till end to decide the suit?
First answer received in 10 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
Property devolves on beneficiaries mentioned in will only on demise of testator
2) it cannot be mutated during lifetime of testator
3) D can file suit to set aside transfer on basis of unregistered document
3) you can file application fir rejection of plaint but if court rejects the application contest suit on merits
Yes if the said property matters were already considered in earlier suit decided by the court then you can file application for rejection of plaint on ground of resjudicata
Invalid neither mutation in revenue records confer title.
Transfer through unregister deed is not valid. She has no title but D has.
File application for rejection of suit. Her case is invalid nor maintainable. Her claim of joint family properties has no value when register Will is here.
1. The Will shall come into force only after the lifetime of the testator, therefore the mutation done in the name of the beneficiaries on the basis of a Will during the lifetime of the testator is not a legally valid transfer as the title to the bequeathed properties still remained with the testator alone as on the date of the mutation. Therefore the mutation of revenue records on the name of the beneficiaries is not valid as per law.
2. If D disputes the transfer of the property since it was done by an unregistered document, he can very well claim it back.
3. The plaint pleadings and the nature of claim made by the plaintiff is to perused to render a proper opinion to your this query.
Dear client,
1. If the properties were mutated into the names of the children before the demise of the parents, as per the will executed in 1984, the transfer could be considered valid. However, the validity of such transfers might depend on various factors, including the nature of the properties and any subsequent legal challenges raised.
2. "X" receiving a property from "D" through an unregistered document might not hold legal ground in the long run. If "D" holds ownership rights to the property and the transfer was not supported by a valid registered deed or relinquishment, "D" might have a case to reclaim or assert rights over the property.
3. "X" admitting to the registered will of 1984 and participating in the compromise case that specifically delineated the distribution of properties, including "Y's" share after her demise, could establish a precedent or a form of estoppel (preventing a person from asserting a right) in the current case. This might be used as a basis to reject or challenge "X's" claim regarding the properties being joint family assets.
Res judicata prevents the same parties from re-litigating the same issues that have already been conclusively decided by a competent court. If the matters were settled in the compromise case and "X" was a party to that agreement, this could be raised as a ground for rejection of the new claim by "X" regarding the properties being joint family assets. However, the applicability of this principle would depend on the specifics of the compromise agreement and the claims made in the current lawsuit. Courts may require full proceedings to determine the claims made, despite potential grounds for rejection based on previous legal decisions or principles like res judicata. The court will assess all evidence and arguments presented before making a final decision on the matter. You can reach out to us for further assistance
1. the 1984 Will is superseded by the 1994 Will
2. so the 1984 Will even though it is registered cannot be called the last Will of the deceased
3. the mutation in the revenue records in favour of the 4 sons before the demise of the parents and based on the 1984 Will is illegal and void ab initio
4. the property distribution made in the 1984 Will being superseded by the 1994 Will, D could not have released or given up his right in the property that he was to get under the 1984 Will unless that same property was also bequeathed to him in the 1994 Will
5. the plaint of X cannot be rejected. the defendants have to bring the factum of the 2 Wills and the earlier suit on record and then at the time of trial, confront X with the said Wills and the earlier suit, to demolish her claim that the properties are joint family properties
