Case Review of Mathai Samuel & Ors vs Eapen Eapen (Dead) By Lrs.

& Ors 

4.3 Family Law

SUBMITTED BY-

Naman Dadhich
UID UG19-119
B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) Academic Year: 2021-22
Semester: IV

SUBMITTED TO-

Prof. (Dr.) Vijender Kumar

(Hon’ble Vice Chancellor of
the University)

Dr. Ashvini Kelkar

(Assistant Professor of Law)

March 2021
MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,
NAGPUR
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................III

AIM AND OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................IV

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................IV

FACTS OF THE CASE.........................................................................................................V

ISSUES AND REASONING.............................................................................................VII

ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................IX

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................XIII
INTRODUCTION
In icase iof iMathai iSamuel iand iOthers iV. iEapen iEapen i(dead) iit iwas iobserved ithat iwhen ia iperson
i speaks ihis imind ion ithe iway ihis iproperties imust ibe idisposed ithrough ia isingle idocument, ihis
i intentions imust ibe iculled ifrom ithe idocument ias ito iwhich iof ithe iproperties iare igifts, itaking ieffect
i immediately, iand iwhich itestamentary idisposals, itaking ieffect ion ihis ideath.

The iSupreme iCourt, iin i2012, iin iMathai iSamuel iv. iEapen iEapen i(2012) i13 iSCC i80, iendorsed ithe
i basic iand ifundamental idifference ibetween ia itestamentary i/ iwill iand ia isettlement/ igift.

In ithis icase iat ihand iwe iwill ireview iand ianalyze ithe idecision iof ithe iApex icourt iin ithe icase iof
i Mathai iSamuel iv. iEapen iEapen i(2012) i13 iSCC i80.

AIM

The iaim iof ithe iresearcher iis ito icritically ianalyze ithe icase iof iMathai iSamuel iv. iEapen iEapen
i (2012) i13 iSCC i80

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
I I

The iresearcher iin ithe iproject ihas iused iprimary isources ifor igetting ithe idesired iinformation iby
i way iof ireferring ito ivarious ibooks. iThe isecondary isource, ion ithe iother iway iis itoo iemployed iinto
i when iany iassistance ifrom ithe ipapers ipublished iin ivarious ijournals iare iused ito. i

The idoctrinal imethodology iof iresearch iwork iis iemployed iinto iin iorder ito iuse ithe ialready
i available iinformation iand idata ion ithe iconciliation iproceedings iunder ithe iIndian iSuccession iAct
i 1925, iTransfer iof iProperty iAct, i1882 iand iThe iRegistration iAct, i1908
FACTS iOF iTHE iCASE

The iplaintiff iand ia iperson ifrom iEapen ifamily iapplied ifor ipartition iand iseparate ipossession iof
i various iitems iof iproperties. iThe itrial icourt ipassed ia ipreliminary idecree igiving ivarious
i directions, ihowever iwith iregard ithe imentioned iitem iwhich irelates ito i3 iacre i40 icents, iit iwas iheld
i that iexhibit idocument idid inot ipreclude ithe iexecutants’ irights ifor idisposing ithe isame iduring itheir
i lifetime. iConsequently, ithe itrial icourt iheld ithat iso ifar ias iitem itherefore inot iavailable ifor
i partition. iThe icourt iheld ithat iB3 isale ideed iexecuted iin ifavour iof i3rd idefendant iin ithe iyear i1964
i by iSosamma iEapen iwas ivalid iso ialso iB1 isale ideed iexecuted iin ithe iyear i1978 iby ithe i3rd
i defendant iin favour
i iof i 4th i defendant.

The iplaintiffs itook iup ithe imatter iin iappeal ibefore ithe icourt iof iDistrict icourt, idecree iand
i judgment iof ithe itrial icourt iwas imodified iand ia ipreliminary idecree iwas ipassed iallowing ipartition
i and ipossession iof i3/6th ishare iof ivarious iitems. iThe iAppellate iCourt itook ithe iview ithat ithe
i above iitem iwas ijointly isettled ithough iits ipossession iand ienjoyment iwere ideferred itill ithe ideath
i of ithe iexecutants. iIt iwas ialso iheld ithat ithe iassignment ideed, iexecuted iby ione iof ithe iexecutants
i and i later by
i i 3rd defendant,
i i was i not i binding i on the
i plaintiffs.
i

Defendant iNos. i3 iand i4 ithen ifiled iAppeal iin ithe iHigh iCourt. iThe iHigh iCourt iaffirmed ithe
i judgment iof ithe ilower iappellate icourt. iWhile ithe iappeal iwas ipending ibefore ithe iHigh iCourt, ithe
i 3rd idefendant idied iand ihis ilegal iheirs igot ithemselves iimpleaded. iThe iHigh iCourt itook ithe iview
i that idisposition iwith iregard ito ithe iabove imentioned iitem iwas inot iambulatory iin iquality ior
i revocable iin icharacter iduring ithe ilifetime iof ithe iexecutants iand iheld ithat ithe idisposition iof ithe
i plaint iis ia isettlement ithough ipossession iand ienjoyment iwere ipostponed. iIt iwas iheld ithat ithe
i executants ihad ino iright iof idisposal iof ithat iitem iand ihence ithe itransfer iin ifavor iof idefendant i3
i and ithe isubsequent iassignment iin ifavor iof idefendant i4 iwere iinvalid. I

The iappellants isubmitted ithat iexhibit iA1 idocument idoes inot ipostulate iany itransfer iof iownership
i or ititle iover i8th ischedule iby ithe iexecutants ito itheir isons iso ialso ischedule iNos. i7 iand i9. iThey
i submitted ithat iitems iin ischedule iNos. i7, i8 iand i9 iwere iunder itheir iabsolute icontrol iof ithe
i executants iand ithey ihad ithe ifull ifreedom ito ideal iwith ithose iproperties. iThe ipetitioner ifurther
i argued ithat ithe itransfer iof iinterest iwas iabsolute iin icharacter iand isettled ion iall ithe isons iequally
i and irest iof ithe ithree iitems iof ithe ischedule, ithe iexecutants ihad iretained ithose iitems ito ithemselves
i and ito ithat iextent iexhibit iA1 ioperated ionly ias ia iWill. I

The icourts ifound ithat ithey iare itestamentary iin icharacter iand ithe isame ireasoning ishould ihave
i been iapplied iin ithe icase iof iitems iin ischedule iNo. i8 ias iwell. iThe iapplicant isubmitted ithat iin ithe
i absence iof iany iwords/recitals iof idisposition/transfer iof iitems iin ischedule iNo.8 iin iexhibit iA1
i conferring ititle iin ipraesenti ion ithe isons, ithe iHigh iCourt iwas inot ijustified iin iholding ithat iexhibit
i A1 was
i i not a
i i Will in
i i respect i of i that i item.

The irespondents ion ithe iother iside icontended ithat ithe irecital iin ithe idocument irelating ito ithe
i nature iof ia isettlement ibestowing ivested irights iin iequal ishares ito iall ithe ichildren iof ilate iShri
i Eapen iand ilate iSmt. iSosamma. I

They isubmitted ithat ithe ispecific ilanguage iof ithe irecital iin ithe iagreement ito iitself iclearly
i indicates ithat irights iare icreated iin ipraesenti iand iat ithe imost ithe ienjoyment ithereof iwas ionly
i postponed iand iwhile ireading ithe iagreement ias ia iwhole, ithe iinevitable iconclusion iis ithat ithe
i document, iparticularly irecital irelating ito ischedule iNo.8, iis iin ithe inature iof ia isettlement
i conferring ivested irights ion ithe isons iof iexecutants iequally. iThe irespondent ifinally isubmitted ithat
i the iHigh iCourt iwas, itherefore, ijustified iin iholding iso, iwhich icalls ifor ino iinterference iby ithis
i Court iin ithis iappeal iby imaking ireferences iof ithe icases iof iP. iK. iMohans iRam iv. iB. iN.
i Ananthachary iand iOthers i(2010) i4 iSCC i161 iand iRajes iKanta iRoy iv. iShanti iDebi iand iAnother1

1
i AIR i1957 iSC i255.
ISSUE
The iquestion iis ito ibe iconsidered ithat iwhether ithe irecitals iin iexhibit iconcerning iitems idiscloses ia
i testamentary idisposition ior ia isettlement icreating ivested irights iin ifavour iof ithe iplaintiffs iand
i defendants ithough ipossession iand ienjoyment istood ideferred iuntil ithe ideath iof ithe iexecutants.

Rule iof iLaw

1. Indian iSuccession iAct i1925,
2. Transfer iof iProperty iAct, i1882
3. The iRegistration iAct, i1908
REASONING iBEHIND iTHE iCASE iAND iJUDGMENT iPROVIDED iBY iTHE iSUPREME
i COURT

The iCourt ifirst iwent iinto ian iexhaustive ianalysis iof ithe iIndian iSuccession iAct iand iTransfer iof
i Property iAct, i1882. iIt ithen iwent iinto ithe idefinition iand iaspect iof iWill, iGift iand iSettlement iin
i India, ifinding ithat iWill iis ian iinstrument iwhere iunder ia iperson imakes ia idisposition iof ihis
i properties ito itake ieffect iafter ihis ideath iand iwhich iis iin iits iown inature iambulatory iand irevocable
i during ihis ilifetime. iThis ielaborates ithe iconcept iof iwill iin isociety.” iThe ireason ifor ithis, ithe iCourt
i found, iwas ithat iSection i2(h) iof ithe iIndian iSuccession iAct isays i“Will” imeans ithe ilegal
i declaration iof ithe iintention iof ia itestator iwith irespect ito ihis iproperty iwhich ihe idesires ito ibe
i carried iinto ieffect iafter ihis ideath”. iIn ithe iinstant icase, ithe iexecutants iwere iIndian iChristians, ithe
i rules iof ilaw iand ithe iprinciples iof iconstruction ilaid idown iin ithe iIndian iSuccession iAct igovern
i the iinterpretation iof iWill. iIn ithe iinterpretation iof iWill iin iIndia, iregard imust ibe ihad ito ithe irules
i of ilaw iand iconstruction icontained iin iPart iVI iof ithe iIndian iSuccession iAct iand inot ithe irules iof
i the iInterpretation of
i Statutes.
i

As iper ithe iopinion iof ithe iHon’ble iCourt iGift iis ithe itransfer iof iexisting iproperty imade ivoluntarily
i and iwithout iconsideration iby ione iperson icalled ithe idonor ito ianother icalled ithe idonee iand
i accepted iby ior ion ibehalf iof ithe idonee. iGift itakes ieffect iby ia iregistered iinstrument isigned iby ior
i on ibehalf iof ithe idonor iand iattested iby iat ileast itwo iwitnesses. iSection i122 iof ithe iTransfer iof
i Property iAct idefines ithe i“gift” ias ia ivoluntary itransfer iof iproperty iin iconsideration iof ithe inatural
i love iand iaffection ito ia iliving iperson.
At ilast ithe icourt iconcluded ithat iA iWill ineed inot ibe inecessarily iregistered. iThe imere iregistration
i of i‘Will’ iwill inot irender ithe idocument ia isettlement. iIn isimpler iwords, ithe ireal iand ithe ionly
i reliable itest ifor ithe ipurpose iof ifinding iout iwhether ithe idocument iconstitutes ia iWill ior ia igift iis ito
i find iout ias ito iwhat iexactly iis ithe idisposition iwhich ithe idocument ihas imade, iwhether iit ihas
i transferred iany iinterest iin ipraesenti iin ifavor iof ithe isettlees ior iit iintended ito itransfer iinterest iin
i favour i of the
i i settlees i only i on the
i death
i i of the
i settlors.
i
i
ANALYSIS

The iSection i2(h) iof iIndian iSuccession iAct, i1925 idefines ithe iterm iWill ias ithe ilegal ideclaration iof
i the iintention iof ia itestator iwith irespect ito ihis iproperty iwhich ihe idesires ito ibe icarried iinto ieffect
i after ihis ideath. iThe iSupreme iCourt iof iIndia iin iMathai iSamuel iv. iEapen iEapen i(Dead) iheld ithat
i settlement iis ithe itransfer iof iexisting iproperty imade ivoluntarily iand iwithout iconsideration iby ione
i person icalled ithe idonor ito ianother icalled ithe idonee iand iaccepted iby ior ion ibehalf iof ithe idonee.
i Gift itakes ieffect iby ia iregistered iinstrument isigned iby ior ion ibehalf iof ithe idonor iand iattested iby
i at ileast itwo iwitnesses. iSection i122 iof ithe iT.P. iAct idefines ithe i“gift” ias ia ivoluntary itransfer iof
i property iin iconsideration iof ithe inatural ilove iand iaffection ito ia iliving iperson. iThe icourt ipointed
i out ithat iin ithe icase iof ia i‘Will’, ithe icrucial icircumstance iis ithe iexistence iof ia iprovision idisposing
i of ior idistributing ithe iproperty iof ithe itestator ito itake ieffect ion ihis ideath. iOn ithe iother ihand, iin
i case iof ia igift, ithe iprovision ibecomes ioperative iimmediately iand ia itransfer iin ipresent iis iintended
i and icomes iinto ieffect. iA iwill iis, itherefore, irevocable ibecause ino iinterest iis iintended ito ipass
i during ithe ilifetime iof ithe iowner iof ithe iproperty. iIn ithe icase iof igift, iit icomes iinto ioperation
i immediately. iThe inomenclature igiven iby ithe iparties ito ithe itransaction iin iquestion, ias iwe ihave
i already iindicated, iis inot idecisive. iA iWill ineed inot ibe inecessarily iregistered. iThe imere
i registration iof i‘Will’ iwill inot irender ithe idocument ia isettlement. iIn iother iwords, ithe ireal iand ithe
i only ireliable itest ifor ithe ipurpose iof ifinding iout iwhether ithe idocument iconstitutes ia iWill ior ia igift
i is ito ifind iout ias ito iwhat iexactly iis ithe idisposition iwhich ithe idocument ihas imade, iwhether iit ihas
i transferred iany iinterest iin ipraesenti iin ifavour iof ithe isettlees ior iit iintended ito itransfer iinterest iin
i favour iof ithe isettlees ionly ion ithe ideath iof ithe isettlors.
CONCLUSION

In ithis icase ithe iHon’ble iSupreme iCourt iheld ithat iWill iis ian iinstrument iwhere iunder ia iperson
i makes ia idisposition iof ihis iproperties ito itake ieffect iafter ihis ideath iand iwhich iis iin iits iown inature
i ambulatory iand irevocable iduring ihis ilifetime iwith iconditions.

The iessential iquality iof ia itestamentary idisposition iis iambulatoriness iof irevocability iduring ithe
i executant’s ilifetime. iSuch ia idocument iis idependent iupon iexecutant’s ideath ifor iits ivigour iand
i effect.

In ithe iinterpretation iof iWill iin iIndia, iregard imust ibe ihad ito ithe irules iof ilaw iand iconstruction
i contained iin iPart iVI iof ithe iIndian iSuccession iAct iand inot ithe irules iof ithe iInterpretation iof
i Statutes. i
On ithe iother ihand, iGift/settlement iis ithe itransfer iof iexisting iproperty imade ivoluntarily iand
i without iconsideration iby ione iperson icalled ithe idonor ito ianother icalled ithe idonee iand iaccepted
i by ior ion ibehalf iof ithe idonee. iGift itakes ieffect iby ia iregistered iinstrument isigned iby ior ion ibehalf
i of ithe idonor iand iattested iby iat ileast itwo iwitnesses. iSection i122 iof ithe iTransfer iof iProperty iAct
i defines ithe igift ias ia ivoluntary itransfer iof iproperty iin iconsideration iof ithe inatural ilove iand
i affection ito ia iliving iperson

The imere iregistration iof ia i“Will” iwill inot irender ithe idocument ia isettlement. iIn iother iwords, ithe
i real iand ithe ionly ireliable itest ifor ithe ipurpose iof ifinding iout iwhether ithe idocument iconstitutes ia
i Will ior ia igift iis ito ifind iout ias ito iwhat iexactly iis ithe idisposition iwhich ithe idocument ihas imade,
i whether iit ihas itransferred iany iinterest iin ipraesenti iin ifavour iof ithe isettlees ior iit iintended ito
i transfer iinterest iin ifavour iof ithe isettlees ionly ion ithe ideath iof ithe isettlors.

In isum, itherefore, ithe iresearcher isuggests ithat ithe ireasoning iin iMathai iSamuel i& iOrs ivs iEapen
i Eapen i(Dead) iBy iLrs. i& iOrs icase iis icompletely ijustified iand iconsonance iwith ithe iprovisions iof
i Indian iSuccession iAct iand iTransfer iof iProperty iAct, i1882.