GD GOENKA UNIVERSITY, SOHNA

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF JAIPUR

AT JAIPUR

(Under the section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure)

Civil Suit No. _______

IN THE MATTER OF

MOHINI……………………………………………………(PLAINTIFF)

V.

PUSHPSHRE……………………………………………………(DEFENDANT)

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE JUDGE OF

DISTRICT COURT OF JAIPUR ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

Submitted by- Harshita Khinchi, BALLB, 6th Sem, 21220935

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

7. AGRUMENT ADVANCED

8. PRAYER

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Hon’ble Honorable

No. Number

Ors. Others

Sc Supreme Court

& And

Mr. Mister

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statute

1. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

2. Hindu Succession Act, 1956
3. Indian Succession Act, 1925
4. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Cases

1. Keshav Sitaram Thackersey v. Vasantrao Gadgil (1970) (Page no.9)

2. R.S. Deo v. Ram Swaroop (1962) (Page no.9)
3. Gurunath karajagi v. Mallikarjun Bhat (1995) (Page no.10)
4. Venkayya v. Parvathamma (1963) (Page no.10 & 11)
5. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) (Page no.11)
6. Prakash v. Phulwati (2016) (Page no. 12)
7. Ram Kumar v. Kamla Devi (1972) (Page no.12)
8. Gopal Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (2000) (Page no. 13)

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In the matter of the suit filed by Mohini against Pushpshree, the defendant, before the Court of
the District Judge, Jaipur, the jurisdiction of the court is invoked under the relevant provisions of
the Indian Succession Act, the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, and the Hindu Succession
Act.

The jurisdiction of this honorable court is appropriate as the suit pertains to matters of
succession, adoption, and partition, which fall within the purview of civil laws and are subject to
adjudication by the District Judge. Furthermore, the property in question is located within the
jurisdiction of this court.

As per the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the relevant laws, the District Judge,
Jaipur, has the authority to entertain and adjudicate upon suits related to succession, adoption,
and partition involving properties situated within its territorial jurisdiction.

Therefore, the defendant submits to the jurisdiction of this honorable court and requests for a fair
and just adjudication of the issues raised in the suit.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Brij Mohan had two wives. Arvind and Rishi were his sons by the first wife and Ranveer
and Yogesh were his sons by second wife.
2. Brij Mohan died in the year 1954 and his second son Rishi also predeceased him in 1953
leaving his widow Mohini. In the year 1950, there was a partition of the joint family
property between Brij Mohan and his four sons- Arvind, Rishi, Ranveer, Yogesh. The
property was divided between the father and four sons by metes and bounds.
3. Anurag, natural born son of Arvind died on 1981, leaving behind a son Anupransh and
widow Pushpshree. Arvind died in 1988 executing a will in the same year before
4. his death where under he gave his properties in equal shares to Anupransh as he was the
last surviving coparcener and Anushree, the daughter of her predeceased daughter,
Saraswati.
5. While executing the will he also indicated Mohini, the widow of his brother Rishi, to take
possession of the entire property which was belonging to him, to manage the same, to
spend the income there from at her discretion and to handover the property to his two
grandchildren after they attained majority and if either or both of them died before
attaining majority, his or her share or the entire property as the cases may be, would go to
Mohini.
6. It is noticed that while making of the will by Arvind, no consent of Anupransh was
present. The point raised out was that Pushpshree, the widow of Arvind’s son, Anurag,
was excluded from the management as well as from inheritance after the death of Arvind.
But on the directions of Mohini, Pushpshree was allowed to manage the entire property
and she accordingly came into possession of the entire property after the death of Arvind.
7. Anupransh and Anushree died in the year 1993 in minority. A suit was filed by Mohini in
year 1994 in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur for possession of property on the ground
asserting that before the death of Rishi, he took Anurag, the son of his brother, Arvind, in
adoption as per some religious customs.
8. Pushpshree contested this suit on ground that her husband was not adopted by Rishi and
his wife, Mohini and she was denied the share on partition.

6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether plaint is maintainable?

2. Whether adoption of Anurag valid?

3. Whether a Mohini and Pushpshree have a right to claim a share in undivided property in
Partition?

4. Whether will made by Arvind in favor of Mohini is valid?

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the plaint is maintainable?

The defendant contests the maintainability of the plaint filed by Mohini on several grounds.
Firstly, it's imperative to note that the plaint hinges upon claims regarding adoption, succession,
and partition of Hindu joint family property. However, the defendant argues that the plaint lacks
clarity and specificity regarding the legal basis of the claims made by the plaintiff.

2. Whether the adoption of Anurag is valid?

The defendant contests the validity of Anurag's adoption due to insufficient evidence and
ambiguity surrounding the timing and circumstances of the adoption. Additionally, the defendant
argues that proper adherence to customary rituals and statutory requirements, including consent,
is lacking. Thus, the defendant urges the court to thoroughly scrutinize the evidence presented by
the plaintiff before validating the adoption claim.

3. Whether Mohini and Pushpshree have a right to claim a share in undivided property in
Partition?

Pushpshree asserts her right to claim a share in the undivided property as the widow of Arvind,
who was one of the coparceners in the joint family. According to Hindu Succession laws,
widows are entitled to inherit a share in the ancestral property of their deceased husbands.
Additionally, Pushpshree contends that Mohini's claim is contingent upon the validation of
Anurag's adoption, which is disputed. Therefore, Pushpshree maintains that she has a legitimate
right to assert her claim in the partition of the property.

4. Whether the will made by Arvind in favor of Mohini is valid?

The validity of Arvind's will hinges on compliance with the Indian Succession Act, 1925. While
the Act permits individuals to dispose of their property through a will, strict formalities must be
observed, including testamentary capacity, proper execution, and attestation. The defendant
maintains that the validity of Arvind's will must be determined in light of these legal
requirements, including any challenges regarding Anupransh's consent as a beneficiary.

8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether the plaint is maintainable?

The defendant challenges the maintainability of the plaint filed by Mohini on several legal
grounds. Firstly, it's imperative to establish the jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge, Jaipur,
over matters concerning succession, adoption, and partition of Hindu joint family property.

Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 31 provides that jurisdiction for disputes
regarding succession and inheritance lies with the district court. Additionally, Section 25 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, stipulates that suits for partition of immovable property should be
instituted in the court within whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

The plaintiff's claims regarding succession, adoption, and partition of property fall within the
purview of the aforementioned statutes, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of District
Judge, Jaipur.

Moreover, the defendant contends that the plaint must satisfy the requirements of Order VII of
the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates clear and specific allegations supported by relevant
facts and legal grounds. In the absence of such particulars, the plaint appears speculative and
lacks a prima facie case.

Furthermore, relevant case law supports the defendant's position. In the case of Keshav Sitaram
Thackersey v. Vasantrao Gadgil (AIR 1970 Bom 124), it was held that the plaint must disclose
a cause of action and establish the court's jurisdiction. Similarly, in R.S. Deo v. Ram Swaroop
(AIR 1962 SC 1337), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of jurisdictional facts in
determining the maintainability of a suit.

Therefore, based on the provisions of Hindu laws, Civil Procedure Code, and relevant case law,
the defendant argues that the plaint filed by Mohini lacks sufficient legal basis and fails to
establish the court's jurisdiction, thus rendering it non-maintainable.

Issue 2: Whether the adoption of Anurag is valid?

9
The defendant contests the validity of Anurag's adoption, presenting several legal arguments
supported by relevant statutes and case law. Under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
1956, Section 6 outlines the essential requisites for a valid adoption, including capacity, consent,
and compliance with customary rituals. Requisites of a valid adoption.- No adoption shall be
valid unless- (i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right, to take in adoption; (ii)
the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so; (iii) the person adopted is capable of
being taken in adoption; and (iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions
mentioned in this Chapter.

Firstly, the defendant highlights the lack of concrete evidence to substantiate the claim of
Anurag's adoption by Rishi. In the absence of documentary proof or credible witnesses, the
adoption remains questionable.

In the case of Gurunath Karajagi v. Mallikarjun Bhat (AIR 1995 SC 2082), the Supreme
Court emphasized the importance of concrete evidence to substantiate claims of adoption. In this
case, the Court held that mere oral testimony or assertions regarding adoption are insufficient to
establish its validity. The Court stressed the need for documentary proof or credible witnesses to
support claims of adoption, especially when challenged. This ruling underscores the principle
that adoption must be supported by concrete evidence to ensure its validity under Hindu law.

Secondly, the timing and circumstances surrounding the alleged adoption raise doubts about its
validity. Anurag's adoption purportedly occurred before the partition of the joint family property
in 1950, yet this fact was not disclosed until the filing of the present suit. Such inconsistencies
cast doubt on the authenticity of the adoption claim.

Furthermore, the defendant argues that the adoption must adhere strictly to statutory
requirements and customary practices. In the case of Venkayya v. Parvathamma (AIR 1963 SC
992), the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with adoption laws for
the validity of adoption. In this case, the Court held that adherence to statutory requirements is
essential to ensure the legality and validity of adoptions under Hindu law. The Court's ruling
underscores the importance of ensuring that adoptions are conducted in accordance with the
provisions laid down in relevant laws to establish their validity.

10
Additionally, the defendant asserts that the welfare of the child is paramount in adoption
proceedings. Without evidence demonstrating Anurag's well-being and best interests, the
adoption cannot be deemed valid.

In light of these arguments and legal principles, the defendant urges the court to thoroughly
scrutinize the evidence presented by the plaintiff and determine whether the adoption of Anurag
meets the stringent criteria prescribed by Hindu adoption laws.

Issue 3: Whether Mohini and Pushpshree have a right to claim a share in undivided
property in Partition?

The defendant contests Mohini and Pushpshree's claim to a share in the undivided property,
under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, widows are recognized as legal heirs entitled to inherit a
share in the ancestral property of their deceased husbands. Additionally, Section 6 of the Act
stipulates the order of succession among heirs, including widows.

Firstly, Pushpshree asserts her right to claim a share in the undivided property as the widow of
Arvind, who was one of the coparceners in the joint family. According to Section 14 of the
Hindu Succession Act, a widow has the same rights in the property as her deceased husband.

Additionally, the landmark judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) solidified
the equal rights of daughters in HUF property, setting a precedent for the equal rights of
daughters-in-law as well. This judgment established that daughters-in-law have legal entitlement
to inherit HUF property, irrespective of whether the father-in-law was alive at the time of the
amendment to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005.

Secondly, Mohini's claim is contingent upon the validation of Anurag's adoption, which remains
disputed. Without conclusive evidence establishing the legality of the adoption, Mohini's claim
lacks a solid foundation. This aligns with the case of Venkayya v. Parvathamma (AIR 1963 SC
992), where the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with adoption laws
for validity.

Furthermore, Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act provides for the devolution of interest in
coparcenary property, emphasizing the importance of legal heirs' entitlement to a share in such
property.

11
In the case of Prakash v. Phulwati (AIR 2016 SC 312), the Supreme Court interpreted Section
23 of the Hindu Succession Act, which provides for the devolution of interest in coparcenary
property. The Court reaffirmed the importance of legal heirs' entitlement to a share in
coparcenary property, emphasizing equitable distribution among heirs. This ruling reinforces the
principle that the partition of property must be conducted in accordance with relevant legal
provisions, including the entitlement of legal heirs to a share in coparcenary property.

Additionally, the defendant asserts that the partition of property must be conducted in accordance
with relevant legal provisions and customary practices. In the absence of a valid adoption and
clear evidence supporting Mohini's claim, Pushpshree maintains her right to assert a share in the
partition.

In light of these arguments and legal precedents, the defendant urges the court to uphold
Pushpshree's right to claim a share in the undivided property and dismiss Mohini's claim pending
validation of the adoption.

Issue 4: Whether the will made by Arvind in favor of Mohini is valid?

The defendant contests the validity of the will made by Arvind in favor of Mohini, the validity of
a will is governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which sets forth the formalities and
requirements for a legally binding will.

Firstly, the defendant challenges the validity of the will based on the absence of consent from
Anupransh, a potential beneficiary. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act mandates that a will
shall be attested by two or more witnesses. Thus, the lack of consent from a beneficiary may cast
doubt on the authenticity and validity of the will.

Additionally, the defendant relies on the legal precedent established in the case of Ram Kumar
v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1972 SC 489), where the Supreme Court held that a will executed under
undue influence or coercion is void. If it can be demonstrated that Mohini exerted undue
influence on Arvind to execute the will in her favor, the validity of the will may be called into
question.

Secondly, the defendant argues that the will must comply with the formalities prescribed under
Sections 63 to 71 of the Indian Succession Act. Any deviation from these formalities may render

12
the will invalid. Therefore, the defendant contends that the court should scrutinize the execution
of the will and ensure compliance with statutory requirements.

In the case of Gopal Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (AIR 2000 SC 1470), the
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adherence to the formalities prescribed under
Sections 63 to 71 of the Indian Succession Act for the validity of a will. The Court held that any
deviation from these formalities may raise doubts about the authenticity and genuineness of the
will, rendering it susceptible to challenge.

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the will must reflect the true intentions of the testator and
be executed freely and voluntarily. In the absence of evidence demonstrating Arvind's full
understanding and consent to the terms of the will, its validity may be contested.

In light of these arguments, legal precedents, and relevant legal provisions, the defendant urges
the court to scrutinize the will made by Arvind in favor of Mohini and determine its validity
based on compliance with statutory requirements and the absence of undue influence.

13
 PRAYER

In light of the foregoing arguments, the defendant respectfully prays for the following reliefs
from this Honorable Court:

1. Dismiss the plaintiff's claim regarding the validity of Anurag's adoption due to the
absence of concrete evidence and failure to comply with statutory requirements.

2. Reject the plaintiff's assertion of entitlement to a share in the partition of property in the
absence of a valid adoption and clear evidence supporting her claim.

3. Uphold the defendant's right to assert a share in the partition of property as the widow of
Arvind, one of the coparceners, in accordance with relevant legal provisions and
customary practices.

4. Grant any other relief deemed just and appropriate by this Honorable Court.

The defendant respectfully submits this prayer for the consideration of this Honorable Court.

14