PETITIONER:
RAMAN NADAR VISWANATHAN NADAR & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SNEHAPPOO RASALAMMA ALIAS AMMUKUTTY & 4OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
17/09/1969
BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
SHAH, J.C.
GROVER, A.N.
CITATION:
1970 AIR 1759 1970 SCR (2) 471
1969 SCC (3) 42
ACT:
Hindu Law--Will--Bequest to unborn person.
HEADNOTE:
K, a Hindu had no issue, but had a brother R who had 3
daughters. K, and R jointly executed a will bequeting the
assets of K to son or sons born in future to R, to the
exclusion of the daughters, after the death of K and R. K
died in 1947. The appellants claiming to be the sons of R
by his subsequent marriage, filed a suit for a declaration
that R had only life interest in K's properties with the
remainder vested in them under the will. The trial court
decreed the suit holding that the second marriage of R was
legal and the appellants were entitled to the properties
subject to R's life estate and that R's daughter had no
right in the properties. R's daughters filed an appeal to
the High Court. Soon after K's death, another suit was
filed by R's daughters 'for administration of K's estate in
which the: appellants mother was a party. This suit was
dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs had lost their
right on the birth of appellants. An appeal to the High
Court was pending in this suit also. The High Court by a
common judgment held that the appellants, sons of R, were
born after K's death, so the devise in their favour was
void, and that after the life estate of R, his daughters
became entitled to the properties for their life time.
HELD: Although there is no authority in Hindu Law to
justify the doctrine that a Hindu cannot make a gift or
'bequest for the benefit of an unborn person yet that
doctrine has been engraved in Hindu Law by the decision of
the Judicial Committee in Tagore v. Tagore. I.A. (1872)
Supp. 47. This doctrine was laid down for the first time in
the case of Tagore. This decision of the Judicial
Committee has stood a great length of time and on the basis
of that decision rights have been regulated,
arrangements as to property have passed. Therefore this
was a proper case in which maxim communis error facit jus be
applied. The principle underlying the maxim is that "the law
so favours the public good, that it will in some cases
permit a common error to pass for right". The bequests in
favour of R's sons were void and of no legal consequence.
[477 A; 478 F-G]
It is, therefore, not possible to accept the argument
that the will was intended to operate or to come into effect
after the death of both the testators. In 'regard to K's
properties the life estate devised in favour of R must
necessarily take effect and remain in force during the life
of R and not after that; it is true that at the end of the
will there is a clause that both the testators have the
right to revoke the will during their lives and that the
will take effect only sub:sequent to their death. But the
true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by
attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading
the will as a whole with all its provisions and ignoring
none of them as redundant or contradictory. It must,
therefore, be held that as the express devise to R for his
life is a disposition intended to take effect after the
death of K and before the death of R the last clause in the
will could not be literally correct. The daughters also
could not take under the will as the bequest in their favour
was subject to the defeasance clause. [480 E-H]
472
Tagore's case, I.A. (1872) Supp. 47 and Charles
Dalton v. Henry Angus & Co., [1881] 6 A.C. 740, 812,
referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2467 of 1966.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 27, 1963 the
Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No. 848 of 1960′.
Sarjoo Prasad, P.K. Pillai and M.R.K. Pillai, for the:
appellants.
V.K. Krishna Menon, R. Thiagarajan and K. Jayaram, for
respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
The. Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by certificate from
the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in A.S. No. 848 of
1962 dated March 27, 1963 reversing the decree of the
principal Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum in O.S. No.. 182 of
1957 dated May 23, 1960.
The father of the plaintiffs who are appellants herein
was a Hindu Nadar namely Raman Nadar. He had an eider
brother named Krishanan Nadar. On May 9, 1946 the said
Krishanan Nadar and Raman Nadar jointly executed a deed of
will Ex. P-2 in respect of the assets of Krishanan Nadar.
On the date of the will, Raman Nadar had only three
daughters and no sons. Krishnan Nadar died on December 5,
1947. After the death of Krishnan Nadar the appellant’s
mother’ was married to Raman Nadar, who is the father of the
appellants. It is specifically provided in the will Ex. p-2
that in the event of Raman Nadar begetting a son or sons in
future those male issues will succeed to the assets of
Krishnan Nadar to the exclusion of the daughters. The
material portion of the will, Ex. p-2, reads as follows:
“Deed of will executed by Krishnan aged
51, Nadar, son of Kaliyambi, merchant,
Makkavazhi, Kuzhiamvilakathu Veettil,
Melkaladi, Airanimuttan, Pakuthy, Nellamn
Adhikaram and his brother Raman son of the
said Kaliyambi of do., aged 39, merchant, on
26th Madam, 1111 M.E. with their own
consultation and to their entire satisfaction.
Some properties have been acquired in the
name of the 1st named and in the name of the
2nd named out of love and affection towards
him and his children, with the self-acquired
money of the 1st named ‘and without the income
of the Tarwad properties of the 1st named and
without the help of the other members of the
Tarwad or the 2nd named. They are held
473
by the 1st named in his possession and enjoyed
by him till this date. The 1st named has, till
the end of his life; absolute freedom,
authority and right to alienate (the
properties) in whatever manner he likes and to
execute deeds. The first named is unmarried
and the second named has married Parvathy
alias Snahappoo daughter of Sarah,
Maraikkamuttath Veettil, Vazhuthoor Desom,
Neyyattinkara Taluk, through whom he has three
daughters Ammukutty aged 14, Chellamma aged 10
and Rajammal aged 5 but no son. As the first
named felt himself desirous of making during
his life provision for the devolution after
his life of the movable and immovable
properties belonging to him in absolute
rights as aforesaid, the following provisions
regarding them are made: The first named till
the end of his life will have the right to pay
the land revenue to enjoy and dispose in any
manner whatsoever all the movable and
immovable properties that belong or may belong
to himself. After the life of the first
named, all the properties above said will be
taken and enjoyed by the second named
maintaining his children named above and those
born to him later and without alienating or
westing the properties. After the life of the
second named, if he leaves behind no sons, the
three daughters named above and the daughters,
if any, born hereafter may enjoy all the
movable and immovable properties that may be
found to belong to the first named and the
second named, either in common or in equal
shares, effecting mutation, taking pattahs and
paying the revenue in their own names, but
without making any alienation thereof. If
there be sons born to the second named, they
will take after the life of the second named
all the movable and immovable properties of
the first named and the 2nd named and enjoy
them for ever, effecting mutation, taking
pattahs and paying revenue, and with all
powers of disposal; and in that event, the
daughters of the 2nd named will not have and
should not claim any right and they will not
get any right.”
Soon after the death of Krishnan Nadar defendants 3 and
4 and the mother of the 5th defendant as plaintiffs filed
O.S. No. 37 of 1124 M.E. for the administration of the
estate of the deceased Krishnan Nadar. The mother of
appellants was made one of the defendants in that suit and
the allegation was that Raman Nadar had contracted an
illicit relationship with her and that he had executed a
gift deed Ex. D-1 in her favour in respect of some of the
plaint items. O.S. no. 37 of 1124 was dismissed on the’
ground that the plaintiffs of that suit had lost their
rights under the will on the birth of a son to Raman Nadar
through his second
474
wife on February 7, 1951 during the pendency of the suit.
The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 37 of 1124 filed A.S. No. 98 of
1955 against the aforesaid decree and that was disposed of
by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on February 2,
1957. The High Court observed as follows:
“We do not consider it proper to decide
this question ‘of ‘the legitimacy of the son
born to the 1st defendant in his second
marriage) in this suit. This can be gone into
in ‘a suit, if any, instituted by or on behalf
of the son. The 1st defendant had no right to
revoke the will after Krishnan Nadar’s
death …… The plaintiffs do not and
cannot get the right to possession of the
properties until after the 1st defendant’s
death but a right to maintenance from
the income of the properties has been provided
for the plaintiffs by Ex. A (the will) and
this they are entitled to get. The 1st
defendant is not entitled to do any act which
affects this right of the plaintiffs.”
The High Court remanded the suit for fresh disposal to the
Additional Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum. After the suit
went back on remand the Additional Subordinate Judge,
Trivandrum held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any
relief and dismissed the suit. The daughters of defendant
no.1 preferred an appeal, A.S. No.. 340 of 1959 to. the High
Court.
Meanwhile the appellants instituted O.S. No. 182 of 1957
for a declaration that the first defendant had only a life
estate in the properties of Krishnan. Nadar with the
remainder vested in them under the will referred to above.
The suit was decreed by the Principal Subordinate Judge,
Trivandrum who held that the second marriage of the 1st
defendant was legal and the sons born out of that marriage
were entitled to Krishnan Nadar’s property subject to the
life estate of the 1st defendant. It was further held that
the daughters of the 1st defendant (plaintiffs in O.S. No 37
of 1124) were not entitled to any right over the properties.
The daughters of the 1st defendant preferred an appeal
against the. decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge being
A.S. No. 848 of 1960. The High Court decided this. appeal
and A.S. No. 340 of 1957 by a common judgment on March 27,
1963. Appeal A.S. No. 848 of 1960 was allowed in whole and
suit O.S. No. 182 of 1957 filed by the appellant was
dismissed. A.S. No.. 34 of 1959 was partly allowed and
appellants 1 and 2 (being the first two plaintiffs in O.S.
No. 37 of 1124) were held entitled to maintenance of Rs..
50/- per head per menses from February 18, 1957. The
alienations, Exs. C, D and E were held not binding upon the
plaintiffs in that suit nor to have any force beyond the
life of the 1st defendant. The other prayer sought by the
plaintiffs in the appeal was disallowed.
475
In dismissing O.S. No. 182 of 1957 the High Court took
the view that the legal validity of the bequests in Ex. P-2
had to be ascertained as on the date of Krishnan Nadar’s
death which was December 5, 1947. The marriage of the
first defendant took place on 14-1-1124 (corresponding to
August 29, 1948) and the first child of that marriage was
born on February 7, 1951. The sons of the 1st defendant
born of his second wife were, therefore, not in existence at
the time of the death of the testator Krishnan Nadar.
Krishnan Nadar belonged to the State of Travancore and all
his properties were located in that State where the doctrine
of pure Hindu Law reigned supreme unaffected by any
legislation. The High Court held that according to pure
Hindu Law a gift cannot be made in favour of a person who
was not in existence at the date of the gift. A person
capable of taking under a will must either in fact or in
contemplation of law be in existence at the death of the
testator. The devise in favour of plaintiffs in O.S. No..
182 of 1957 was void as they were not born at the time of
death of Krishnan Nadar. After the life estate of the 1st
defendant, the daughter:rs became entitled to the properties
for their life time.
The question involved in this appeal is whether the High
Court was right in holding that plaintiffs have not
established their title to the disputed properties.
Although there is no authority in Hindu Law to justify
the doctrine that a Hindu cannot make a gift or bequest for
the benefit of an unborn person yet that doctrine has been
engrafted on Hindu Law by the decision of the Judicial
Committee. This doctrine was laid down for the first time
in Tagore’s case(1), in which it was held by the Judicial
Committee that a Hindu cannot make a gift in favour of a
person who is not in existence either in fact or in
contemplation of law at the time the gift was to take
effect. The Judicial Committee purported to base its
decision on a passage in Dayabhaga, Ch. 1, verse 21 as.
appears from the following passage in the judgment:
“This makes it necessary to consider the
Hindu Law of Gifts during. life and wills, and
the extent of the testator’s power, whether in
respect of the property he deals with of the
person upon whom he confers it. The Law of
Gifts during life is of the simplest
character. As to ancestral estate it is said
to be improper that it should be aliened by
the holder, without the concurrence of those
who are interested in the succession, but by
the law as prevailing in Bengal at least (1)
the impropriety of the alienation does not
affect the legal character of the act (factum
valet), and it has long been recognised as.
law
(1) I.A. (1872) Supp. 47.
476
in Bengal that the legal power of transfer is
the same as to all property, whether
ancestral or acquired. It applies to all
persons in existence and capable of taking
from the donor at the time when the gift is to
take effect so as to fall within the principle
expressed in the Dayabhaga, cup. iv. 21, by
the phrase ‘relinquishment in favour of the
donee who is a sentient person’ By a rule now
generally adopted in jurisprudence this class
would include children in embryo, who
afterwards come into separate existence.” (pp.
66-67).
But the Judicial Committee was apparently under some
misconception with respect to the meaning of the words of
Dayabhaga.The whole sentence in the original is as follows:
of which the following is the: correct translation:
“Since in a gift the done’s ownership in
the thing (given) arises from the very act of
the donor, consisting of the relinquishment of
his ownership with the intention of passing
the same to a sentient being.”
The sentence neither expresses nor implies that the
“sentient being” must be in existence. or be present at the
time and place of the relinquishment. On the contrary the
whole argument contained in paragraphs 21 to 24 of Ch. 1 of
Dayabhaga shows that a gift is completed by the donor’s act
alone, the acceptance of the donee being not necessary.
Indeed, in the very next passage, Dayabhaga speaks of
gifts to God as showing that the validity of the gifts does
not depend upon acceptance.
Mr. Sarjoo Prasad suggested that the matter required
reconsideration. But it is manifest that the decision of
the Judicial Committee in Tagore’s case(1) has stood a
great length of time and on the basis of that decision
rights have been regulated, arrangements as to property have
been made and titles to property have passed. We are hence
of the opinion that this is a proper case in which the maxim
communis error facit jus may be applied.
The principle underlying the maxim is that “the law so
favours the public good, that it will in some cases permit a
common error to pass for right”; as an example of which may
be mentioned the case of common recoveries in English law,
which were fictitious proceedings introduced by a kind of
pea fraus to elude the statute de Donis, and which were at
length allowed by the Courts to be a bar to an estate tail,
so that these recoveries however clandestinely introduced,
became by long use and acquiescence a legal mode
(1) I.A. (1872) Supp. 41.
477
of conveyance whereby a tenant in tail might dispose of his
lands. There is a reference made to this principle by Lord
Blackburn in his speech in Charles Dalton v. Henry Angus
& Co.(1) as follows:
“I quite agree with what is said by the
late Chief Justice Cookburn (3 Q.B.D. at page
105) that where the evidence proved an adverse
enjoyment as of right for twenty years, or
little more, and nothing else, ‘no one had the
faintest belief that any grant had ever
existed, and the presumption was known to be a
mere fiction’. He thinks. that thus to
shorten the period of prescription without
the authority of the Legislature was a great
judicial usurpation. Perhaps it was The same
thing may be said of a11 legal fictions, and
was often said (with, 1 think more reason) of
recoveries. But I take it that when a long
series of cases have settled the law, it
would produce intolerable confusion if it were
to be reversed because the: mode in which it
was introduced was not approved of even where
it was originally a blunder, and
inconvenient, communis error facit ]us.”
The doctrine in Tagore’s case(:) has been altered by
three Acts, namely, the Hindu Transfers and Bequests Act, 1
of 1914, the Hindu Disposition of property Act of 1916 and
the Hindu Transfers and Bequests (City of Madras) Act, 1921.
The legal position under these Acts is that no bequest shall
be invalid by reason only that any person for whose benefit
it may have been made was not born at the date of the
testator’s. death. This rule, however, is subject to the
limitations and provisions contained in ss. 113, 114, 115
and 116 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
It is, however, not disputed in the present case that on
the relevant date none of the three Act was operative and
the doctrine or pure Hindu Law was applicable to the
Travancore State. It follows that the principle laid down
in Tagore’s case(2) applied and the bequests in favour of
the sons of the 1st defendant are void and of no legal
consequence.
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the
bequest in favour of the sons of the 1st defendant was in
the nature of a family provision and, therefore, fell
outside the principle laid down in Tagore’s case(2). In
our opinion, there is no justification in this argument.
Assuming without deciding that a family provision is an
exception to the rule of pure Hindu Law stated above a
provision in a will whereby the testor directs that his
properties after his death shall be taken by his nephews or
in their absence
(2) 1. A. (1872) Supp. 47.
(1) [1881] 6A.C. 740,812.
478
by his nieces cannot be characterised as a family provision.
The object of such a disposition is obviously not to make a
family provision but to chart a course for future devolution
of the testators properties.
The argument was stressed on behalf of the appellants
that the will Ex. P-2 was a joint will executed by Krishnan
Nadar and Raman Nadar and it was designed to take effect
only after the death of both the testators. As the sons of
the 1st defendant must necessarily be born before that event
the principle in Tagore’s case(1) was not attracted.
Reference was made to the following passage from Jarman on
wills 8th edn.
“Two or more: persons may make a joint
will, which, if properly executed by each, is,
so far as his own property is concerned, as
much his will, and is as well entitled to
probate upon his death, as if he had made a
separate will. But a joint will made by two
persons, to take effect after the death of
both, will not be admitted to probate during
the life of either. Joint wills are revocable
at any time by either of the testators during
their joint lives, or, after the death of one
of them, by the survivor.”
In our opinion there is no warrant for this argument.
The ‘will Ex. P-2 contains separate provisions regarding the
devolution of the properties of each of the testators. In
regard to the properties of Krishnan Nadar it devises a life
estate to let defendant and the remainder to his sons or in
their absence to his daughters. In regard to the
properties of Raman Nadar the devise is to his sons and in
their absence to his daughters. It is therefore, not
possible to accept the argument that the will was intended
to operate or to come into effect after the death of both
the testators. In regard to the Krishnan Nadar’s properties
the life estate devised in favour of the 1 st defendant must
necessarily take effect ‘and remain in force during the life
of the 1st defendant and not after that. It is true that at
the end of the will there is a clause that both the
testators have the right to revoke the will during the lives
and that the will will take effect only subsequent to their
death. But the true intention o,f the testator has to be
gathered not by attaching importance to isolated expressions
but by reading the will as a whole with all its provisions
and ignoring none of the has redundant or contradictory. It
must, therefore, be held that as the express devise to the:
1st defendant for his life is a disposition intended to take
effect after the death of Krishnan Nadar and before the
death of 1st defendant, the last clause in the will cannot
be literally correct.
It was then contended on behalf of the appellants that
in any event the High Court was in error in holding that the
title of the
(1) I. A. (1872) Supp. 47.
479
plaint properties vested in the daughters of the 1st
defendant under the terms of the will, Ex. P-2. It appears
that during the pendency of the appeal defendant no. 1
Raman Nadar died on May 20 1969 and the question, therefore,
arises whether the daughters are entitled to a life interest
in the plaint properties after the death of defendant no. 1.
It is manifest from the will that the bequest to the
daughters is subject to the prior condition that the
defendant no. 1 leaves behind no sons at the date of his
death. The relevant portion of Ex. P-2 states:
“After the life of the second named, if he
leaves behind no sons, the three daughters
named above and the daughters, if any, born
hereafter may enjoy all the movable and
immovable properties that may be found to
belong to the. first named and the second
named, either in common or in equal
sharps …….. ”
The bequest to the daughters was, therefore, defensible on
the sons being born to defendant no. 1. Hence upon the
death of defendant not 1 on May 13, 1969 there was no valid
bequest to the daughters. In other words there was an
intestacy and the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 (Act no. 30 of 1956) would be applicable. The sons of
defendant no. 1 cannot take under the will because they
were unborn on the date of the death of the testator
Krishnan Nadar. The daughters also cannot take under the
will as the bequest in their favour was subject to the
defeatisms clause. It is evident that the appellants would,
be entitled to, their lawful share of the properties of
Krishnan Nadar under the provisions of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 and they are entitled to a declaration to that
effect and other consequential reliefs. But it is not
possible for us to finally dispose of this appeal because
there was an issue in the trial court as to whether the
appellants were the legitimate sons of defendant no. 1. The
case of the defendants 3 to 5 was that there was no. legal
marriage between the 1st defendant and the mother of the
plaintiffs. But the assertion of the plaintiffs, was
that their mother married the 1st defendant after getting
herself converted into Hinduism and such marriage was
legally valid and the plaintiffs are the legitimate children
of the 1st defendant. The trial court decided the issue in
favour of the plaintiffs but the High Court has not gone
into the question nor recorded a finding as to, whether the
plaintiffs are the legitimate sons of defendant no. 1.
For these reasons we hold that this appeal must be
allowed, the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated March
27, 1963 in A.S. No. 848 of 1960 should be set aside and the
appeal should be remanded to the High Court for determining
the issue whether
480
the plaintiffs were the legitimate sons of defendant no. 1
and thereafter dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.
The parties will bear their own costs upto this stage.
The application made by the plaintiffs for the
appointment of a Receiver will be dealt with by the High
Court.
y.p. Appeal allowed.
481