You are on page 1of 13

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AT CHANDIGARH.

Civil suit no.__

IN THE MATTER OF :

VINITA …………………………..…………PETITIONER

VS.

SEEMA………………………………….…RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Submitted by:

Elizabeth Chongneihoi

Roll no. – 15/14, Section-A.

9th Semester, B.A.LLB (Hons)

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 1


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ----------------------------------------------------- 3

I. TABLE OF ABRIVATIONS ---------------------------------------------- 3


II.CASE LAWS ------------------------------------------------------------ 4
III.BOOKS REFERRED--------------------------------------------------------- 5
IV.WEBSITES REFERRED ----------------------------------------------------- 5

2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION------------------------------------------ 6

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS ------------------------------------------------------- 7

4. STATEMENT OF ISSUES--------------------------------------------------------- 8

5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ------------------------------------------------ 9

6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ---------------------------------------------------- 10-12

7. PRAYER OF RELIEF ------------------------------------------------------------ 13

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 2


INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. TABLE OF ABRIVATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another
Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
Del Delhi High Court
Ed. Edition

H.C High Court


Hon’ble Honourable
IC Indian Cases
Ker Kerela
MPH Madras High Court
MPLJ Madhya Pradesh Law Journal
Raj Rajasthan High Court
Rs Rupees
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
Vs. Versus

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 3


II. CASE LAWS CITED

 Ananda Krishna Tate vs Draupadibai Krishna Tate

 Dilip Kumar JaIn Vs. Smt. Shobharani JaIn and ors.

 Jaideep Bajaj v. Shashi Bajaj & Anr.

 Kalawati Balasaheb Karne vs.Chanda Hanmant Karne & Anr.

 Laxminarayan Vs. Tulsabai and ors.

 Narayanan vs Meenakshi

 Satbir &Anr v. Govt of Delhi NCT,Delhi

 T.S. Sadagopan and ors. Vs. T.N.K. Ramanujam and ors.

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 4


III. BOOKS Referred:
 Lawmann, The Hindu Succession Act 1956,
 Dr. Paras Diwan; Modern Hindu Law, 22nd Edition,2013.

Bare Acts referred:


 THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
 The Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
 The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act 1937.

IV. WEBSITES REFERRED

 www.legalcrystal.com
 www.casemine.com
 indiankanoon.org
 www.vakilno1.com
 www.britannica.com
 www.legalserviceindia.com
 timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 5


STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondent submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble District Court, Chandigarh under :

1. Under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956, that the suit for partition instituted
by the plaintiff to be null.
2. Under Section 115 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872, the plaintiff will be bound by the
virtue of principles of estoppels on the relinquishment deed executed by her in favor of
the respondent on 1st April, 2015.

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 6


STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Seema was the daughter of Late Anish Kumar and Late Smt. Kusum .

 After his first wife died i.e., Kusum , Late Anish Kumar had remarried Vinita.

 Consequently on dated 1st April 2015 both mother and daughter entered into a family
arrangement in presence of Anish whereby a sum of Rs. l-0 crores was given to Vinita in
consideration for execution of a release deed by Vinita whereby she relinquishes her
share in the entire property of her husband, Anish, in favour of her daughter Seema.

 Anish expired due cardiac arrest on lOth May, 2015. The relations between mother and
daughter remained cordial.

 Serious differences arose between mother and daughter which led to serious quarrels
Seema directed Vinita to leave the house.

 On 15 May 2017,Vinita filed a suit for partition claiming her share in the property.

 Seema being aggrieved by the suit defended the suit on the base of the relinquishment
deed executed by Vinita.

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 7


STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether Vinita is entitled to claim partition?

2. Whether by executing the deed of relinquishment in favor of Seema, Vinita has


waived her right to property ?

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 8


SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether Vinita is entitled to claim partition?


No doubt both the parties are first class heirs to the property in dispute. However, Vinita has
relinquishes her share in the entire property thus making her not entitled to claim partition.
The suit for partition by Vinita is not maintainable As per Section 8 (a)
of Hindu Succession Act read with Schedule - Class 1, when a Hindu dies intestate, his
property shall devolve upon his legal heirs, as per succession, here the legal heir being the
respondent.

II. Whether by executing the deed of relinquishment in favor of Seema, Vinita has waived
her right to property ?
Vinita had accepted the consideration amount and by executing the relinquishment deed she
had to abide by it because if she doesn’t it affects public policy and there is no point of
executing the above deed which is bad in law and sets a bad precedent for the general public.
A relinquishment deed is irrevocable even if it is made without any consideration. Here, the
plaintiff has accepted a consideration of a sum of Rs. l0 crores and the deed was made when
Anish was alive in the presence of the respondent too which proved that the deed executed is
valid .
By executing the relinquishment deed , the rule of estoppel would operate as against the
plaintiff who has relinquished a future right. Thus,Vinita has waived her right to property.

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 9


ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether Vinita is entitled to claim partition?

Initially under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act enacted in 1973, a woman
could seek partition. Subsection (3) of Section 3 the Hindu Women's Right to Property
no doubt gave a right to the woman to seek partition. However this act has been repealed
by the Hindu Succession Act 1956. The Hindu woman (mother in this case) has no right
to file a partition under the 1956 Act, Though earlier this was available in the 1937 Act.
“In the absence of any other coparcener in the family demanding for partition of the joint
property, the suit by the plaintiff was not maintainable.

Therefore the plaintiff cannot seek advantage of section 3 of the Hindu Women’s Right to
Property.1

In Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, which was amended in 2005 by The Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The new law gave daughters the same right as the
sons to reside in and to claim for partition of the parental ancestral property. But it made
no mention of widow seeking her share in the ancestral property of her husband’s family
after his death.2 Enhancing this argument by referring to a case law in Narayanan vs
Meenakshi3, it was held that the provisions of the section: “Provided that where such
female heir is a daughter, she shall be entitled to a right of residence in the dwelling-
house only if she is unmarried or has been deserted by or has separated from her husband
or is a widow.” There is no mention of the widow of the father, the female heir would be
interpreted as the daughter. In this case it would be the Respondent.
Referring to a case law in Laxminarayan Vs. Tulsabai and ors4., it was held that plaintiff
was a widow and she did not have the right to claim partition of a residential house.

Hence, by the referring to the above judgement the plaintiff have no right to claim for
partition.

1
Ananda Krishna Tate vs Draupadibai Krishna Tate ; Bombay H.C., 2nd March,2010
2
Kalawati Balasaheb Karne vs.Chanda Hanmant Karne & Anr; Bombay H.C, 16 September, 2014
3
AIR 2006 Ker 143, 2006 (1) KLT 210

4
2000(4)MPHT351

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 10


II. By executing the deed of relinquishment in favor of Seema, Vinita has waived her right
to property.

Vinita will be bound by by virtue of principles of estoppels5 as enumerated under Section 115
of, Evidence Act which reads as :
Estoppel: “When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused
or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither
he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and
such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”

Referring to a case law in T.S. Sadagopan and ors. Vs. T.N.K. Ramanujam and ors,6 the
plaintiff was estopped by her conduct, on an application of Section 115, Evidence Act, from
claiming any right to inheritance which accrued to her , on her husband's death, covered by
the deeds of relinquishment for consideration, irrespective of the question whether the deeds
could operate as legally valid and effective surrenders of their spes successionis.
A relinquishment deed cannot be set aside simply on the ground that while executing the
deed, we were willing but now we aren't. Since the plaintiff had already relinquished her share
in favor of the defendant she is not entitled for any share in the future 7. A relinquishment
deed is irrevocable even if it is made without any consideration. Thus, clearly waiving her to
property in the future.

Referring to a judgement in the case of Jaideep Bajaj v. Shashi Bajaj & Anr8, where a
plaintiff intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in
respect of the portion so relinquished.

 Validity of the deed

Family arrangement is an agreement between the members of the family intended to be


generally and reasonably for the benefit of the family either for compromising a dispute or for
preserving the family property for peace and security of the family by avoiding litigation or

5
Dilip Kumar JaIn Vs. Smt. Shobharani JaIn and ors. AIR2006MP231; 2005(4)MPLJ60
6
(1993)2MLJ481
7
Satbir &Anr v. Govt of Delhi NCT,Delhi High Court (29 April),2016.
8
Delhi High Court,(19th May), 2006

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 11


saving its honour9. A family arrangement being binding on the parties to the arrangement
clearly operates as an estoppel so as to preclude any of the parties who has taken advantage
under the agreement from revoking or challenging the same. Even if a family arrangement
which required registration was not registered, it would operate as an estoppel against the
parties who have taken advantage of the same.

9
T.S. Sadagopan and ors. Vs. T.N.K. Ramanujam and ors; (1993)2MLJ481

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 12


PRAYER OF RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, argument advanced, reasons given and authorities
cited, this HON’BLE COURT may be pleased to:

 Dismiss the petition of the plaintiff for partition of the property under Section 23 of the
Hindu Succession Act with heavy cost for the ends of justice.

 Apply the law of estoppel under Section115 of the Indian Evidence Act on the plaintiff
to dismiss her right in the property which she had already relinquishes.

 Pass any other order this HON’BLE COURT finds proper to provide relief to the
respondent in the interest of justice and equity, may kindly be passed.

Sd/-
(Counsel for the respondent)

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent Page 13