VALLIKANU V. R. SINGAPERUMAL & ANR.

IN THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AT NEW DELHI

In the matter of
Vallikannu
(Appellant)
V.
R. Singaperumal & Anr.
(Respondents)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT

Counsel on Behalf of the Respondent

Shubham Brijwani

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

VALLIKANU V. R. SINGAPERUMAL & ANR.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................................................................03
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...............................................................................04
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..05
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................06
5. ISSUES RAISED .............................................................................................07
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .........................................................................08
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .............................................................................09
8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................11

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

VALLIKANU V. R. SINGAPERUMAL & ANR.

ABBREVIATIONS

Anr. ............................................................................... Another

AIR................................................................................ All India Reporter

CIT ... Commissioner of Income Tax

CWT Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Guj. .. Gujarat

H.C................................................................................ High Court

Hon'ble...........................................................................Honourable

H.S.A............................................................................. Hindu Succession Act.

ITR................................................................................ Income Tax Reporter

Ori Orissa

Ors................................................................................. Others

v. ....................................................................................Versus

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

VALLIKANU V. R. SINGAPERUMAL & ANR.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
CASES REFERRED:
1. Bhaga Pruseth v. Purini Dei
2. Kamalakanta Mohapatra v. Pratap Chandra Mohapatra
3. CIT v. Babubhai Mansukhbhai
4. CWT v. Chander Sen
5. CWT v. Mukundgiriji.

BOOKS:
6.

Family Law II, Dr. Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Lexis Nexis

7.

Mulla Hindu Law, by Styajeet A. Desai, Lexis Nexis

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

VALLIKANU V. R. SINGAPERUMAL & ANR.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum in response to the appeal filed before
this Honourable Court in the matter of Vallikanu v. R. Singaperumal & Anr. The petition
invokes its appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, issues and arguments in the present
case.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

VALLIKANU V. R. SINGAPERUMAL & ANR.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.

The scheduled properties are the self-acquired properties of late Ramasami Konar
and the first defendant is the only son of Ramasami Konar and the plaintiff is the
wife of the first defendant. Wife of Ramasami Konar was already divorced and
married with some other person and was residing separately. It is alleged that the first
defendant in the suit married the plaintiff- appellant and both were residing as
husband and wife.

2.

On 10th October, 1972 the first defendant murdered his father, Ramasami Konar and
was convicted under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment. The conviction of the
first defendant was confirmed by the High Court but the High Court recommended
the Government to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The first
defendant was released in July, 1975.

3.

After the release of the first defendant from the prison, first defendant lived with the
plaintiff for some time but after some time she was driven out of the house. Second
defendant is already impleaded in the suit as tenant claiming under first defendant.
Plaintiff, therefore, prayed that she may be granted the relief of declaration as she is
entitled to inherit the entire estate of the deceased Ramasami Konar.

4.

The Trial Court by Order dated 31st March, 1980 held that all the properties are joint
family properties of the deceased Ramasami Konar and first defendant.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

VALLIKANU V. R. SINGAPERUMAL & ANR.

ISSUES RAISED
Whether the plaintiff can inherit the properties from the estate of her deceased fatherin-law, Ramasami Konar?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

VALLIKANU V. R. SINGAPERUMAL & ANR.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Whether the plaintiff can inherit the properties from the estate of her deceased fatherin-law, Ramasami Konar?
No, the plaintiff is not entitled to inherit property from the estate of her deceased father in
law, Ramaswami Konar, because of various reasons as elucidated below.
Firstly, under the traditional or classical law, on the death of a coparcener in a joint family
his interest in the family property is immediately taken by those coparceners who survive
him. Thus on the death of Ramaswami Kapoor, the property will immediately be taken by
defendant no. 1 as the sole surviving coparcener.
Secondly, the plaintiff, according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 can
inherit property from the estate of her deceased father in law only if her husband, i.e. the
son of Ramaswami Konar is dead, which is not true in this case.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

VALLIKANU V. R. SINGAPERUMAL & ANR.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED
ISSUE NO. 1. - No, the plaintiff is not entitled to inherit property from the estate of
her deceased father in law, Ramaswami Konar, because of various reasons as
elucidated below.
Firstly, under the traditional or classical law, on the death of a coparcener in a joint
family his interest in the family property is immediately taken by those coparceners
who survive him. Thus on the death of Ramaswami Kapoor, the property will
immediately be taken by defendant no. 1 as the sole surviving coparcener.
Secondly, the plaintiff, according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
can inherit property from the estate of her deceased father in law only if her
husband, i.e. the son of Ramaswami Konar is dead, which is not true in this case.
In the case at hand, the lower court concluded that the property in question is joint family
property and not the separate property of Ramaswami Konar. Thus the property will
devolve by survivorship and not by the rules of inheritance or intestate succession. It was
held in Bhaga Pruseth v. Purini Dei1 that according to the doctrine of survivorship, on
the death of a coparcener in a joint family his interest in the family property is
immediately taken by the surviving coparceners.
Thus, in the instant case, the property in question being joint family property should
devolve upon Respondent no. 1 because he is the sole surviving coparcener.
It was held in Kamalakanta Mohapatra v. Pratap Chandra Mohapatra2 that a female
cannot be a coparcener. Thus in this case, the Appellant is not entitled to inherit the
property in question by virtue of her gender.
It is also to be noted that Respondent no. 1 has not lost his right to survivorship.
According to Mayne, the right of a coparcener to take by survivorship is defeated on the
following conditions:

1
2

The Coparcener is a congenital idiot or a lunatic.

He is given in adoption.

AIR 2003 NOC 171 (Ori)

AIR 2010 Ori 13

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

VALLIKANU V. R. SINGAPERUMAL & ANR.

He surrenders his share in the coparcenary.

His interest is lost due to adverse possession by others.

His interest has been attached in execution of a decree against him.

His interest is vested in the official assignee.

In the present case, the respondent cannot be disqualified of his right to the said property
by the doctrine of survivorship. Thus the appellants claim is entitled to be rejected and
the property should devolve upon the respondent no. 1.
According to Section 8 (a)3 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The property of a Hindu male dying intestate shall devolve firstly, upon the heirs, being
the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule.
Under Entry (ix) of Schedule I4, the son of a Hindu male qualifies to inherit his fathers
property. The wife of a living son is not eligible to inherit the property, she can only
inherit the property of her father-in-law when her husband dies under Entry (v) of the
Schedule.
It was held in CIT v. Babubhai Mansukhbhai5 that under the Act, a so takes an absolute
interest in the property and no one can claim any right over or in regard to it. This view
was upheld by the court in CWT v. Chander Sen6 and CWT v. Mukundgiriji.7
Thus in view of the authorities cited and arguments advanced before this Honble court
the counsel establishes that the Appellant in the instant matter is not entitled to inherit the
property of her deceased Father-in-Law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

3

Section 8(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Schedule I to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
5
1977108 ITR 417 (Guj.)
6
1986 67 ITR 370
7
1983 144 ITR 18
4

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

10

VALLIKANU V. R. SINGAPERUMAL & ANR.

Wherefore, in the lights of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the counsel pleads this HONBLE Court to:

To dismiss the present appeal

To declare that Respondent no. 1 is entitled to inherit the property in question.

And/or pass any other order/orders in favour of the respondent that it may deem fit in
the ends of Justice, Equity and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly submitted.

Place: New Delhi

Date: 12th October 2015

Shubham Brijwani
Counsel on behalf of the Respondents

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

11