SARVJIT SINGH SAREEN Vs. RITU MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in this Suit seeks declaration as to Will dated 06.09.1995, which he disputes, as not legal and binding and that it contravenes Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act; he also claims that in the event of declaration not being granted, the Court should hold that the said Will is void and not binding on him. He further seeks a decree for partition in respect of the estate of Mrs. Lajja Sareen (hereafter called 'the testatrix') regarding the property No. N -84, Panchsheel Park (hereafter referred to as 'suit property'), movable/immovable assets fully described in the Suit, for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition and take consequential steps towards drawing a final decree.

(2.) THE undisputed facts that may be gathered from the pleadings are that the plaintiff (hereafter referred to as 'Sarvjeet'), Defendant No. 1 (hereafter referred to as 'Ritu') and defendant No. 2 (hereafter referred to as 'Beena') are brother and sisters respectively. They are the surviving children of the testatrix, who owned the suit property. The testatrix expired on 17.12.1995, leaving behind the suit property, cash and fixed deposits in the Central Bank of India and some units of the Unit Trust of India. The suit describes a Will dated 29.04.1986 in terms of which the testatrix provided that the suit properties were to vest in her children whereby Sarvjeet and Ritu were to jointly own the ground floor of the property; the first floor was to be inherited by Beena. The suit alleges that restrictions, on the disposition of the property or the shares of each heir were provided in this Will of 1986. According to such restrictions, no heir could sell or transfer his or her share without first offering it to the other two and that in the event of transfer of such share to one or the other heir, it was to be at half the fair market value.

(3.) THE suit further alleges that in December, 1995, the testatrix was not in a fit condition to read the Will or understand its contents. It is alleged that the attesting witnesses did not sign the documents on 6.9.1995 as stated in it. The Suit alleges that besides the testatrix not being possessed of a sound disposing mind, the circumstances show that it was executed on account of mis -representation and fraud played by Ritu and Menon, who led her to believe that they would be ousted from the property if Sarvjeet was given unrestricted right, along with his siblings. The suit alleges that the conditions imposed in the Will are absolutely illegal. They provide that during the life time of Ritu, Menon or their daughter Ratna Menon, i.e., the fourth defendant, (hereafter 'Ratna') they would have the right to live on the ground floor; Beena was to enjoy the life interest in respect of the first floor. The plaintiff submits that the first part of the Will, however, unambiguously bequeaths the suit property to the three heirs and the subsequent conditions have the effect of postponing the vesting by the heirs, contrary to Section -114 of the Indian Succession Act (hereafter referred to as Act).