Law Does Not Permit A Person To Both Approbate & Reprobate, Party Can't Accept & Reject The Same Instrument: Madras High Court Reiterates

The court also discussed a recent decision where the court had similarly held that the party claiming right over the scheduled property cannot take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/ courts.

In the present case, the original plaintiff claimed that through a settlement deed, her father had given her a life interest in the property, and the vested remainder was given to her children absolutely. It was further pleaded that this settlement deed was filed before the Land Reforms Tribunal and this document was acted upon when the orders were passed by the Tribunal on 9.6.1991.

The defendants, however, submitted that this settlement deed was never acted upon and this settlement deed was created only for the purpose of getting an exemption under the Land Reforms Act. It was further pleaded that the father continued to deal with the properties and was in complete control and enjoyment of the properties and the Patta also stood in his name till his demise.

The trial court was not supportive of the argument raised by the defendant and held that the document was acted upon before the Land Reforms Tribunal and an order was also passed by the Tribunal by relying upon the document.

In appeal, however, the Lower Appellate Court found that the settlement deed was executed by the father only to minimize the extent of surplus land and escape the consequences under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act. Therefore, according to the Lower Appellate Court, this document was never intended to be acted upon by the father and consequently, the benefits conferred under this document never reached the daughters.

The Lower Appellate Court had also held that the bar provided under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act did not apply in the present case and it was open to the parties to prove that the actual contract between the parties is different from what is mentioned in the document. The court accepted the contention of the defendants that the father had dealt with the properties even after execution of the settlement deed as if the properties belonged to him absolutely. Hence, the settlement deed was never acted upon.

The High Court however was of the opinion that the Settlement deed was presented before the Land Reforms Tribunal and a favorable order was also obtained. This fact in itself will amount to acting upon the Settlement deed. The fact that the father had dealt with the properties even after execution of the settlement deed is irrelevant and not binding on his daughters in whose favor the property was settled.

An issue was also raised with respect to the validity of the will executed by the father after the execution of the settlement deed. The court held that though this Will mentioned other properties also, a large portion of the Will was with respect to the suit schedule properties. The court was of the opinion that the issue with respect to the genuineness of the Will need not be looked into by the Court since it relates to other properties also and as the court had already deemed it bad in law.

The respondents pleaded that there was a necessity for the court to give a final verdict on the genuineness of the Will so that the parties will know where they stand and so that the materials already produced before the court with respect to the genuineness of the will need not go to waste.

However, the court relied on the decision of R. Srinivasa Row Vs. Kaliaparumal (Minor) and Another (1966) and held that the court need not go into such issues which do not have any impact on the dispute involved in the case.

"…..a Court is expected to only answer those issues which arises for consideration and a Court is not expected to get into those issues which does not have any impact on the dispute involved in the case. In other words, where a vital finding on an issue by itself is enough to dispose of the case, a Court should not be getting into other issues and render its findings. In fact, by rendering such findings on the issues where the Court need not have gone into, those findings cannot even be considered as res judicata in the later suit. This is in view of the fact that those findings were not necessary or required to decide the actual dispute between the parties."

However, considering that the exercise already undertaken to prove the will should not go into waste, the court directed that the Will and the evidence that has been given to prove the execution and genuineness of the Will and the materials relied upon for the same can be used as evidence by the parties in any other proceedings between the parties where there is an issue touching upon the genuineness of the Will.

Case Title: Lakshmi Ammal (died) and Others v. Ammayi Ammal (died) and others

Case No: SA No. 337 of 2012

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 206

Click here to read/download the judgment