Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MOOT COURT
SURESH AGARWAL..APPELANT
VS
GEETHA AGARWAL...RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION
OF MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
(GEETA AGARWAL)
Here after RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENT
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT |
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION
EXPANSION
&
ABR
AIR
AIR
All.
Anr.
AP
Art.
Bom.
Edn. / Ed.
Guj.
HC
Hon`ble
HONBLE
I.L.R
Id.
And
Paragraph
All India Reports- Bombay High Court Reports
ALL INDIA REPORTE.
All India Reporter
Allahabad
Another
Andhra Pradesh
ARTICLE.
Bombay
Edition
Gujarat
High Court
Honorable
HONORABLE.
Indian Law Reporter
Ibid
Ker.
L.J.
Ltd.
Mad.
MP
Mr.
No.
No.
Ors.
Ors.
Pat.
Pg.
Pvt.
Re.
SC
Kerela
Law Journal
Limited
Madras
Madhya Pradesh
Mister
NUMBER.
Number
OTHERS.
Others
Patna
Page
Private
Reference
SUPREME COURT.
SC
SCC
SCR
Sd/
UOI
UP
v./vs.
Vol.
Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT CASES.
Supreme Court Reporter
Signed
Union Of India
Uttar Pradesh
VERSUS.
Volume
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE
CITATION
Guramma v. Mallapa
1964 AIR 510, 1964 SCR
(4) 497
Devulapalli Kameswara Sastri vs. Polavarapu
Veeracharlu
Rani v. Shanta
STATUTES
www.westlaw.com
www.manupatra.com
www.indiankanoon.com
www.scconline.com
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Mr. Kantilal Agarwal, who was a successful businessman had acquired
different immovable and moveable properties in and around Hyderabad.
He passed away in the year 1985, leaving behind his children Shyam
Agarwal, Sunil Agarwal and Susheela Agarwal.
After which, Mr.Shyam Agarwal became the Karta of the family. He passed
away in the year 1995 due to ill health.
Thereafter, Mr. Sunil Agarwal became the head of HUF. Whose children
include, Somesh Agarwal, Suresh Agarwal, Sailesh Agarwal and Geetha
Agarwal, grandchildren, Ramesh Agarwal and Ramya Agarwal (predecased
son Somesh Agarwals children), Kiran Agarwal. Keerthi Agarwal, Kalyan
Agarwal, Arjun Agarwal.
Sunil Agarwal ran,
(1) Non-Banking Finance Company by name SR Agarwal NBFC Jubilee
Hills, Hyderabad
(2) SR Agarwal Film Studio extending to acres 200, at Madhapur,
Hyderabad
(3) A Farm House of 100 acres at Gandipet, Hyderabad.
Later, Sunil Agarwal alienated 15.00 acres by way of gift in favor of Ramya
and executing 15 acres of farm land by will favor of Ramesh Agarwal.
Sailesh Agarwal married Sanjana, a Neurologist, who set up a nursing home
which had flourishing practice, studied medicine and obtained MD in
Cardiology at the expenses of joint family property.
The fact that Sailesh kept his earnings for himself, after studying with the
expenses of the joint family property, made other family members unhappy.
After Sunil Agarwals death in 2005, Suresh Agarwal being elder among
coparceners became the "Karta" of Joint Hindu Family.
Later, he sold 30 acres of farm agricultural land for 50 Crores to one Mr.Anil
Kapoor to renovate film studio at Madhapur. He also mortgaged shares of
S.R. Agarwal NBFC for Rs.5 Crores to the State Bank of Hyderabad,
Baghlingampally Branch, Hyderabad to perform the marriage of Ramya
Agarwal aged 16 years.
Aggrieved by the acts of Suresh Agarwal, GeethaAgarwal filed a Suit before
District Court. The district court dismissed the suit.
Aggrieved by this judgement of the District Court, Mrs. Geetha Agarwal
preferred an Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. The High Court held
that she could be Karta of Joint Hindu Family as per Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005.
Further, aggrieved by the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, the
respondents preferred this Appeal before the Hon'ble Moot Court.
Kantilal
Agarwal
died
in1985
Susheela
Sunil and
Rama
Shyam
died 1995
Somesh
(died)
died
1998
died 2005
Sailesh and
sanjana
Suresh
Ramesh
Kiran
Ramya
keerthi
Kalyan
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Geetha
Arjun
ISSUES RAISED
(1) Assuming the existence of HUF, whether Geetha Agarwal is a coparcener?
(2) If so, whether she is legally entitled to be the Karta of the HUF after the
enactment of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
(3) Whether the gift made in favour of Ramya Agarwal is valid?
(4) Whether the WILL made in favour of Ramesh Agarwal is vaild?
(5) Whether the sale of 30 acres of farm agricultural land for Rs.50 crores to
renovate film studio is valid?
(6) Whether mortgage of shares of S.R.NBFC to State Bank of Hyderabad,
Baghlingampally Branch, Hyderabad to perform the marriage of Ramya
Agarwal is valid ?
(7) Whether the income of Sailesh Agarwal be included in Hindu Undivided
Family?
(8) To what relief ?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1 Assuming the existence of HUF, whether Geetha Agarwal is a
coparcener?
Firstly, section 29A of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 gives
equal rights to daughter in coparcener property.
(1)
Hence it is clear from the above stated Sec 29A that a woman can be a
Coparcener and has equal rights like a Son in the Property.
Section 6 - Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.
(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005*, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a
coparcener shall,
(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she
had been a son;
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as
that of a son,
and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a
reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this
sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any
partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the
20th day of December, 2004.
(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of subsection (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and
shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law
for the time being in force in, as property capable of being disposed of by her by
testamentary disposition.
(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005*, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family
governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate
succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the
coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had
taken place and,
(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;
(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would
have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the
surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and
(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased
daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the
partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the predeceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.
Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu
Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would
have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately
before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.
(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*,
no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or greatgrandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or greatgrandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of
such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt: Provided that in
the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005*, nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect
(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson,
as the case may be; or
(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any
such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in
the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted.
Explanation. For the purposes of clause (a), the expression son, grandson or
great-grandson shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson,
as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*.
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been
effected before the 20th day of December, 2004. Explanation. For the purposes
of this section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of
partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition
(a) in a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a co-parcener in her own right in the same manner
as the son and have the same rights in the co-parcenary property as she would have
had if she had been a son inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship and shall
be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as the son;
(b) at a partition in such a joint Hindu family the co-parcenary property shall be so
divided as to allot to a daughter the same share as is allotable to a son: Provided
that the share which a predeceased son or a predeceased daughter would have got
at the partition if he or she had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be
allotted to the surviving child of such predeceased son or of such predeceased
daughter: Provided further that the share allotable to the predeceased child of a
predeceased son or of a predeceased daughter, if such child had been alive at the
time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such predeceased child of the
predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter, as the case may be;
(c) any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of the
provisions of clause (a) shall be held by her with the incidents of co-parcenary
ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or
any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of
by her by will or other testamentary disposition;
(d) nothing in clause (b) shall apply to a daughter married prior to or to a partition
which had been effected before the commencement of Hindu Succession
(Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990.
The Hindu Succession Amendment Act, (2005). This act made the daughter a
coparcener by birth. It also omitted Section 23 of Act which dis entitled a female
heir to ask for partition in respect of a dwelling house, wholly occupied by a joint
family, until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein. Thus
this amendment removed the discrimination against females.
# Hindu Succession Amendment Act, (2005) and females as coparceners :The most significant amendment made by the Hindu Succession Amendment Act,
(2005) was to make the daughter a coparcener by birth in her own right. The term
Mitakshara Coparcener now includes daughters in it. A daughter now has the same
rights in the Coparcenary property as that of a son and is subject to the same
liabilities as that of a son in respect of the said Coparcenary property. For example
if the coparcenary property is subject to some debts then on partition the female as
a coparcener would also be liable to pay the debts over her share of the property
and thus is subject to the same sets of liabilities as that of a son in respect of the
said property. Also any property which a daughter obtains under the amended
section will be held by her with the incidents of Coparcenary property and she can
dispose it off by the testamentary disposition. This act also abolishes survivorship
and the only modes of devolution now followed are testamentary or intestate
succession. Further in case of notional partition the daughter is allotted the same
share as is allotted to a son. This act also removes the obligation of a son, grandson
or great grandson to pay the debts of his father, grandfather or great grandfather
solely on the ground of his pious obligation thus bringing equality amongst sons
and daughters.
#Indian Constitution
The framers of the Indian Constitution took note of the adverse and discriminatory
position of women in society and took special care to ensure that the State took
positive steps to give her equal status. Articles 14, 15(2) and (3) and 16 of the
Constitution of India, thus not only inhibit discrimination against women but in
appropriate circumstances provide a free hand to the State to provide protective
discrimination in favour of women. These provisions are part of the Fundamental
Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Part IV of the Constitution contains the
Directive Principles which are no less fundamental in the governance of the State
and inter-alia also provide that the State shall endeavour to ensure equality between
man and woman Notwithstanding these constitutional mandates/directives given
more than fifty years ago, a woman is still neglected in her own natal family as
well as in the family she marries into because of blatant disregard and unjustified
violation of these provisions by some of the personal land.
Article 14 -Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection
of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place
of birth
Article 15(2) & (3) Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or
any of them
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any
disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State
funds or dedicated to the use of the general public(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
special provision for women and children
Article 16- Equality of opportunity.
(2)
If so, whether she is legally entitled to be the Karta of the HUF after
the enactment of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
of the family who is concluded to be the Karta. This conclusion is based upon
seniority and the opinion of the other members does not hold much significance. It
must be noted that a person cannot become the karta until and unless the previous
karta is no longer alive notwithstanding few exceptions[2].
It was held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lakshmi Narang[3] that a female
member can be allowed to be the karta under some situations.
# Making her the Karta would make her position more respectable:
Despite the Constitution guaranteeing equality to women, there are still many
discriminatory aspects in the Hindu law in the sphere of property rights. In our
society maltreatment of a woman in her husband's family, e.g. for failing to
respond to a demand of dowry, often results in her death. But the tragedy is that
there is discriminatory treatment given to her even by the members of her own
natal family. Thus, if she is made the Karta of the family, then all the members of
the family will respect her because of her position and women abuse will be
controlled. This will enhance her self-confidence and social worth and give her
greater bargaining power for herself and her children, in both parental and marital
families.
# After The Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 women are recognized as
coparceners:
In the Hindu system, ancestral property has traditionally been held by a joint Hindu
family consisting of male coparceners. Coparcenary as seen and discussed earlier
in the present work is a narrower body of persons within a joint family and consists
of father, son, son's son and son's son's son. A coparcenary can also be of a
grandfather and a grandson, or of brothers,or an uncle and nephew and so on. Thus
ancestral property continues to be governed by a wholly partrilineal regime,
wherein property descends only through the male line as only the male members of
a joint Hindu family have an interest by birth in the joint or coparcenary property.
Since a woman could not be a coparcener, she was not entitled to a share in the
ancestral property by birth. A son's share in the property in case the father dies
intestate would be in addition to the share he has on birth. But after the amendment
daughters have from birth coparcenary rights. So they can be kartas as they are
now recognized as coparcenors.
# A woman coparcener can also be the karta of an HUF:Till 2005, daughters were not coparceners of their fathers family (unlike sons,
who became coparceners on birth), but were only members of the family on birth,
and ceased to be members of their fathers family on their marriag
A Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is a concept based on traditions and customs.
This concept has, however, undergone changes by amendments in law. By an
amendment in 2005 to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the entire concept of
HUFs, as was then prevalent, underwent a fundamental change.
Till 2005, daughters were not coparceners of their fathers family (unlike sons,
who became coparceners on birth), but were only members of the family on birth,
and ceased to be members of their fathers family on their marriage. A coparcener
is a member of an HUF who has the right to claim a partition of the family. Only
male members were regarded as coparceners till 2005. The 2005 amendment gave
equal rights to daughters as to sons,providing that daughters become coparceners
of their fathers families on birth in the same manner as sons, and have the same
rights as sons in the family properties.
Various issues arose on account of this amendment. Would it apply to daughters
born before the date of amendment, or only those born after the amendment?
Would the amendment apply to a daughter who had got married before the
amendment, and therefore ceased to be a member of her fathers family? Would it
apply to a daughter whose father had passed away before the amendment? Would
the legal heirs of a daughter who has passed away before the amendment be
entitled to the daughters share of the family assets? Can a daughter become a karta
(manager, normally the eldest coparcener) of the family after the amendment?
What if the eldest son had already become the karta before the amendment? The
Power of Alienation -Neither the karta or any other co-parcener has the right to
alienate the joint property of the family but in exceptional situations wherein the
alienation becomes binding upon all the members of the family. The
Dharmashastra recognizes this power of the karta to alienate the property but under
some specific situations only. They have been stated below:
Apatkale
ancestral property, it is binding upon the minor members of the family too and they
cannot impeach this contract for which the benefit has been enjoyed, upon
attaining majority.[8]
Also, it is a cardinal rule that the actions of the karta have to be justified with the
clause of necessity or benefit to the family for these members to be bound by the
actions of the Karta. Such alienation cannot be considered to be for the purpose of
a legal necessity if the legal remedy to recover the debt has become timebarred. He can alienate the property with his own discretion due to some
necessity or through the normal process of having a totality in family assent
towards such alienation.
Thus, it can be safely concluded through the research that Karta can only have one
specified limitation which is that:
A karta must act with prudence; prudence implies caution as well as foresight
and excludes hasty, reckless and arbitrary conduct and such alienation on part of
the karta without the family purpose or necessity clause, is void[9]
For this question of prudence, the considerations sufficiency is an important
condition for such judgment.
As analyzed though precedents, it cannot be stated that whenever a karta requires
monetary sums in order to pay the pre-emption requirements and for the prices of
new property, it is always without any requirement in legal contrivance and thus,
outside the ambit of the father in the family. Also, it cannot be stated that the karta
is supposed to borrow amounts for such fresh acquisition by pre-emption. These
matters have to be dealt according to the special existing circumstances each time.
[9] Also, during times when the money borrowed by the Karta is for his individual
purposes, he is not allowed to mortgage or use the family property in any manner
to fulfill his own liabilities.
In kanna Gounder v arjuna gounder,[10] the court held that the prohibition against
making the gifts by coparcener of his undivided interest in the coparcenery
property continues even after the enactment of Hindu succession Act . where a
coparcener made a gift from joint family property without obtaining the consent of
other coparceners, the gift becomes invalid.
In palliyatmariyomma v palliyatkidave[11] gift of the property by karnavathi in
favour of her children was held to be legal. The court held that the tarvad property
managed by the senior most family member acting as karnavathi shall not be
treated as her self acquired property. As such transfer by way of gift is not valid or
invalid
[6] AIR 1941 ALL 174: 1941 ALJ 129: 1941 AWR (HC) 70
[7] AIR 1939 All 486: 1939 ALJ 604
[8] AIR 1956 Oudh 302 (DB)
[9] Lexis Nexis Pg 620
[10] Subramanium v. Krishnaswami, AIR 1972 Mad 377: 85 Mad LW 211.
[11] Kanna Gounder v Arjuna gounder AIR 2003 Mad. 157
[12] Palliyatmariyomma v Palliyatkidave AIR 2005 Ker. 170
property to the extent of his interest in the joint family property.If such coparceners
alienate in excess of his interest in the joint family property then other coparceners
can impugn the alienation so far as the excess in concerned.
If the karta alienates property with out any legal necessity or for the benefit of the
family then such alienation is impeachable by the sons but it may bind the sons
under the doctrine of pious obligation if such alienation is made for payment of
antecedent untained debts.
#Alienation without Necessity Void or Voidable
The question whether Alienation made by a father or other manager which is
neither for a legal necessity nor for the discharge of an antecedent debt is void or
voidable has given rise to conflicting judicial opinions.
The debate was put to rest by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Raghubanshi
Narain Singh vs. Ambica Prasad[13], where it was held that alienation made
without legal necessity is not void but merely voidable.
LEGAL NECESSITY
Broadly speaking, legal necessity will include all those things which are deemed
necessary for the members of the family. The term Apatkale under Vijnaneshwara
may indicate that joint family property can be alienated only in time of distress
such as famine, epidemic, etc. and not otherwise, however, it has been recognized
under the modern law that necessity may extend beyond that. In Devulapalli
Kameswara Sastri vs. Polavarapu Veeracharlu[14], it was held that necessity
should not be understood in the sense of what is absolutely indispensable but what
according to the notions of the joint Hindu family would be regarded as proper and
PARTIAL NECESSITY
In Krishandas vs. Nathuram[16], Privy council held that where the necessity is
only partial, i.e., where the money required to meet the necessity is less than the
amount raised by alienation, in such a case, the sale will be valid only where the
purchaser acts in good faith and after due inquiry and is able to show that the sale
itself is justified by legal necessity.
In the instant case, alienation was for Rs. 3500, and the alienee was able to prove
the legal necessity for Rs.3000, the alienation was held valid.
However, where the manager decides to raise money by a mortgage of family
property, he can borrow the precise amount required for necessity; mortgage will
stand good only to the extent of the necessity proved.
Existing Coparceners Right to Challenge Alienation
It is a settled law that an improper Alienation can be challenged by all or anyone of
the coparceners existing at the time of alienation.
In Bombay and Madras, when an alienation is challenged by the coparcener, it will
be set aside only to the extent of their interest in the joint family property. As under
these schools coparcener has power of alienating his undivided interest by sale or
mortgage.In case of suits filed by the coparceners, Madras High Court has given
some vital rules:In the case of Permanayakam vs. Sivaramma[17], where it was
held that
1. If the alienation is made only for partial necessity, it may be set aside.
2. If alienation is only a device for distinguishing a gift, the other coparceners
dont lose interest in the property or survivorship rights.
Finally, it was laid down in the case of Sunil Kumar vs. Ram Prakash[18] that a
coparcener cannot ask for an injunction against alienation on the ground that it is
not for legal necessity.
16] (1926) L.R. 64 I.A. 79
[17] AIR 1952 Mad 435
(5) Whether the sale of 30 acres of farm agricultural land for Rs.50 crores to
renovate film studio is valid?
No the sale of the farm agricultural land for Rs.50Crs to renovate film studio is
invalid:-
As Firstly the property being HUF property the Karta has to take the consent of
the family as it is undivided interest of all the coparceners equally according to Sec
6 of Hindu Succession Act (2005 Amended).
Secondly assuming the sale to be valid:
Karta is accountable to the family members and the coparceners as its the dutiy of
a karta to provide the details of the transactions made in the interest of the HUF.
Thirdly, Is there a legal necessity to sale agricultural land for renovation of the
Studio?
The Validity of the sale is questionable as every coparcener has a right to know
their interest in the HUF Property
Wherefore, in the light of the authorities cited, issue raised and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly pleaded before the Honble court that it may adjudge
and declare:
Geeta Agarwal a Karta in the Hindu Undivided Family
To declare invalid
> The Gift and Will made by Sunil Agarwal made in favour of Ramya,Ramesh
Agarawal respectively?
> Sale of 30 acres of farm agricultural land for Rs.50 crores to renovate film
studio?
> Mortgage of shares of S.R.NBFC to State Bank of Hyderabad, Baghlingampally
Branch, Hyderabad to perform the marriage of Ramya Agarwal?
> Include income of Sailesh Agarwal in Hindu Undivided Family?
To issue any other further order as the court may deem fit in interest of
justice, equity good conscience and fair play.
PLACE: HYDERABAD
DATE:19 March 2016
23 February 2016