AMITY UNIVERSITY RAJASTHAN,2023

Before

THE HON’BLE District COURT OF Jodhpur, RAJASTHAN

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(CIVIL) NO. ___/2023

IN THE MATTER OF

ISHITA APPELLANT
VS
MALTIDEVI AND DEEPTI RESPONDENT

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY.

Dr. Saroj Bohra Atharv vyas
(Dean academic) enroll: A21511121034

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

STATEMENT OF ISSUES 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether Ishita’s claim is right? 11

2. Whether will made by Malti Devi in valid? 12

3. Whether the property received to Malti devi as a gift has valid ground for claiming
entitlement by Ishita. 13

PRAYER 14

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

E,g, Example

Hon’ble Honourable

No. Number

Ors. Others

Sec. Section

HC High Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Rj. Rajasthan

u/s Under Section

v. Versus

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Referred

1. Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai, (1987) 2 SCC 572 (575).

(a) Section 14 (1) of Hindu succession act of 1956.
(b) The Act came into force on June 17, 1956.
2. Ganesh Mahanta v. Sukria Bezva, AIR 1963 Ori 167: 39 Cut LT 474.
3. Venkatarathnam v. Palamma, (1970) 2 Andh WR 264.
4. Chinnakolandai Gourdan v. Thanji Gounder, ILR (1966) 1 Mad 326: AIR
1965 Mad 497: (1965) 2 MLJ 247.
5. Teja Singh v. Jagat Singh, AIR 1964 Punj 403.
6. Ramgolvda Aunagozvda v. Bhausaheb, ILR 52 Bom I: AIR 1927 PC 227.
7. Bai Champa v. Chandrakanta Hiralal Dahyabhai Sodagar, AIR 1973 Guj
227.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

1. The Indian Succession Act, 1925.

2. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
3. The Indian Limitation Act, 1963.
4. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
5. The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
6. The Registration Act, 1908.
7. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has approached the Hon’ble High Court under Section 96 of the Civil

Procedure Code, 1908. The Appellant claims that she is entitled to the impugned property.

inherited from Appellant’s mother and rebuts all the arguments advanced by the Respondent

Sister of the Appellant.

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether Ishita’s claim is right?

2. Whether will made by Malti Devi in valid?

3. Whether the property received to Malti devi as lieu of maintenance has valid ground for
claiming entitlement by Ishita.?

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 STATEMENT OF FACTS.

1. The case involves Sunderlal, his wife Malti, and their two daughters Dipti and Ishita. In
1953, Sunderlal executed a Will of his self-acquired properties, bequeathing one-fourth
share to his wife Malti for her lifetime, with their daughter Ishita as the ultimate
beneficiary. He also gifted half share in his property to Malti with limited ownership,
and Ishita was again named as the ultimate beneficiary.

2. Sunderlal died in 1954, and a partition of the joint family property took place by metes
and bounds under the decree of the court. In 1955, Malti received one house situated at
Ajmer as a limited owner under the decree of court in lieu of their maintenance out of
the joint family property.

3. Malti died in 2018, leaving a Will in favour of her second daughter, Dipti, bequeathing
both the properties received by her through the Will by her husband in 1953 and also the
house received by her in lieu of maintenance as a limited owner out of the joint property
under the decree of court in 1955.

4. Ishita claimed the properties received under the Will made by Malti and the property
received under the Gift made by Malti in Dec 1953. The district court passed a decree in
favour of Dipti, but Ishita appealed in the High Court of Rajasthan, claiming that she
was also the daughter of Malti and hence entitled to succeed to their properties. She
argued that the Will made by Malti was not valid and that she was also entitled to
succeed to the property received as a gift in Dec 1953 by Malti Devi.

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether Ishita’s claim is right?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon'ble court that, the appeal made by Ishita is not
considerate or stand on any valid ground as the will is being held valid by the district court as
well and was made for self-acquired properties.

. 2. Whether will made by Malti Devi in valid?

Marti's will contains one-fourth of the property given to her by her husband in accordance
with his will, making it her personal property, and the other will of the gifted property as she
wishes. He had all the rights he gave to anyone, but they were void as they were. Granted for
a limited time, Ishida already had unlimited beneficiaries of the property, including access,
while Maruti, who is also her owner, had a limited share in her other daughter's Deepti grant.
You have the same right to give her some of the access.

3. Whether the property received to Malti devi as lieu of maintenance has valid ground
for claiming entitlement by Ishita?

The property received by Malti as lieu of maintenance cannot be taken away even after her
death and is entitled to bequeath the assets as per her Will and is said to be enjoyed by her for
lifetime so Ishita’s claim on the lieu of maintenance property is completely invalid and
groundless.

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

A. Whether the property received to Malti devi as lieu of maintenance has valid to be
willed as her own.?

A woman’s right over property, given in lieu of maintenance to be enjoyed during lifetime,
cannot be taken away after her death and she is entitled to bequeath the assets as per her will
Supreme court has ruled, holding that it is the duty of the husband to maintain her even if he
has no property.
A bench of justices MY Eqbal and C Nagappan said a woman’s right over the property given
for maintenance is absolute and in-laws cannot claim it after her death. It said maintenance
for wife or widow is not a mere formality to be exercised as a matter of concession but a
valuable right for the woman which cannot be denied under the Hindu law .

Section 14(1), Hindu Succession Act. –

An case of conflict of decision which fortunately came to be resolved by the Supreme Court(
after a time pause of nearly 25 years) may be appertained to at this stage. The case related to
section 14( 1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and interpretation of the words" full owner"
being in that section. Section 14( 1) of the Act reads as under-

"(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the
commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited
owner.

Explanation.-In this sub-section, 'property' includes both movable and immovable property
acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of
maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not,
before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by
prescription, or in any other mariner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as
stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act."

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the widow would be entitled as full owner in the
above circumstances.

RELATABLE CASE LAWS

Memorial on behalf of respondent

1Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar (1928)

This case dealt with the concept of limited ownership or 'life interest' in property, where a
person is entitled to enjoy the property during their lifetime but cannot transfer or sell it. The
court held that a limited owner can only dispose of the property to the extent of their interest
in it, and that the ultimate beneficiary has a right to the property after the death of the limited
owner. This case is relevant to the extent that Ishita is claiming a share in the property
received by Malti Devi as a limited owner in lieu of maintenance under the decree of court.

2Venkatarama v. Parthasarathy (1963)

This case dealt with the question of whether a limited owner can dispose of the property in
their Will, even if they do not have absolute ownership of the property. The court held that a
limited owner could dispose of the property by Will to the extent of their interest in it, and
that the ultimate beneficiary has a right to the property after the death of the limited owner.
This case is relevant to the extent that Ishita is contesting the validity of the Will made by
Malti Devi in favour of her second daughter, Dipti, and claiming a share in the property
received by Malti Devi as a limited owner.

Whether the ¼ property willed by her husband in his will is her self-acquired property?

The wife does not have any claim to her husband's self-Acquired property unless she inherits
it from her husband after his death, however, she is only entitled to the property if the
husband died interstate since she is a class 1 hire in accordance with section 8 of the Hindu
succession act.

Here, Malti was given property by her husband in his WILL which was 1/4 th part and that
much part is her individual assets and can be Willed to anyone.

1 The citation for the case of Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar (1928) is AIR 1929 Mad 65.
2 Venkatarama v. Parthasarathy, AIR 1966 Mad 385.

Memorial on behalf of respondent

Regarding the issue of whether the property received by Malti Devi in lieu of maintenance
can be validly willed as her own, the relevant case law is the case of 3 Sonubai v.
Ramchandra (2008) 13 SCC 50. In this case, the Supreme Court held that a limited owner
of property, who has only a life interest in the property, can dispose of the property by will
only to the extent of her interest in the property. She cannot dispose of the property as if she
had an absolute interest in it. Therefore, the validity of the Will executed by Malti Devi in
favor of Dipti will depend on whether Malti Devi had an absolute interest in the property
received in lieu of maintenance or only a limited interest.

As to whether the quarter property inherited from Sunderlal to Malti Devi is her personal
property, the relevant case is V. Tulasamma et al v. Sesha Reddy (1977) 3 SCC 99. In this
case, Der The Supreme Court has held that any property acquired by a Hindu woman as a gift
or by her will is her absolute property and not that of her husband or her family. Therefore,
her quarter property left by Suunderlal Malti Devi in her will was considered her own
property and she would have had the right to dispose of it as she wished.

Whether will made by Malti Devi in valid?

In this case, the Will made by Malti Devi appears to be valid.

First, Marti Devi was the exclusive owner of the property she received. That is, she had the
right to enjoy property for the rest of her life, but she was not free to dispose of it. As a
limited owner, she was empowered to dispose of property only to the extent permitted by law.

Second, Malti Devi's will was made during her lifetime and complied with the law. Under the
Indian Succession Act, 1925, a person has the right to dispose of his property at will. If the
will is validly executed, property will be transferred according to the terms set forth in the
will. In this case, Malti Devi had the right to inherit the received property to anyone,
including her daughter Dipti.

3 Sonubai v. Ramchandra (2008) 13 SCC 50.

Memorial on behalf of respondent

Third, Ishita's claim that he also has the right to inherit property received from Malti Devi
cannot be supported. The property was taken over by Malti Devi as limited owner and
according to the court order this was in lieu of maintenance from the common family
property. You may not claim any rights to property owned by you.

In summary, Malti Devi's will was executed during her lifetime and is valid according to law.
Mr Ishida, as a limited owner, cannot claim any rights to the property received from the joint
family property in lieu of maintenance.

RELATABLE CASE LAWS

• Raghbir Kaur v. Harminder Singh

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if a woman receives property from her
husband on the condition of maintenance, she is entitled to make a will in respect of that
property.

• Bhoora Mal v. Bansidhar (1990):

In this case, the court held that a Will is a testamentary instrument that is valid if it is
executed in accordance with the provisions of law. If the Will is valid, the property will
devolve as per the provisions mentioned in the Will.

• 4Ram Gopal v. Ram Dulari (2003):

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 In this case, the court held that a limited owner has the right to dispose of the property to
the extent allowed by law, and that the disposition will be valid if it is made in
accordance with the provisions of law.

• 5M. P. Varshneya v. Pankaj Jain (2006):

In this case, the court held that if a person has received property as a limited owner, they
have the right to enjoy the property during their lifetime but cannot dispose of it freely.
The limited owner has the power to dispose of the property only to the extent allowed by
law

PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of facts used, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is

most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge and

declare that: -

1. Ishita’s claim in Malti’s devi property is invalid.

2. That the Will made by Malti is valid

And/or

5 M. P. Varshneya v. Pankaj Jain, (2006) 5 SCC 762.

Memorial on behalf of respondent

The court may also please to pass any other order or relief in the favour of humble defendant.

which this Hon’ble court may deem get in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.

Memorial on behalf of respondent