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 PLAINTIFF

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. Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major (2009) (Page no. 9)

2. N L Manjunath & Anr. v. B L Ananda (Page no. 10)
3. Gulab Chand v. Bajrang das (1963) (Page no. 10)
4. Satya v. Teja Singh (1975) (Page no. 11)
5. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) (Page no. 11)
6. Ramesh Chandra v. Sant lal (1973) (Page no. 12)
7. Ramchandra Shrinivas Nayak v. Govindrao Keshavrao Dattatreya Bapat (Page no. 13)
8. Girdhari Lal v. Mahant Ganga Das (1937) (Page no. 14)
9. Dhunputh Lal v. Russomoy Dhur Chowdhry (1868) (Page no. 14)
10. Mallappa v. Chanbasappa (1965) (Page no. 14)

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this case lies within the Court of District Judge, Jaipur, as per the suit filed by
Mohini in the year 1994 for possession of property. The Court of District Judge, Jaipur, has the
authority to adjudicate on matters concerning property disputes and inheritance under Hindu Law
within its territorial jurisdiction.

Therefore, this court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and decide the issues raised in the
present case and thereby, the plaintiff submits this memorial which sets forth the facts,
contentions, and arguments of the laws which claims are based.

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 plaint is maintainable?

The plaint is maintainable as it raises legitimate legal issues regarding property ownership and
inheritance under Hindu Law. The plaintiff seeks rightful possession of the property based on
valid legal grounds, and thus the plaint should be entertained by the court for adjudication.

2. Whether the adoption of Anurag is valid?

The adoption of Anurag by Rishi and Mohini is valid under Hindu Law. Although no formal
adoption deed was executed, Hindu Law recognizes adoptions performed according to religious
customs as valid. The acceptance of Anurag by Rishi and Mohini as their son and their intention
to treat him as such constitute valid adoption under Hindu Law. Therefore, the adoption of
Anurag should be deemed valid.

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

Both Mohini and Pushpshree have valid claims to a share in the undivided property under Hindu
Law. Mohini, as the widow of Rishi, is entitled to her husband's share in the joint family
property. Similarly, Pushpshree, as the widow of Arvind's son Anurag, is entitled to a share in
the property. The partition of the joint family property in 1950 did not exclude Mohini or
Pushpshree from their entitlement to a share in the property. Therefore, both Mohini and
Pushpshree have a legal right to claim a share in the undivided property.

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

Both Mohini and Pushpshree have valid claims to a share in the undivided property under Hindu
Law. Mohini, as the widow of Rishi, is entitled to her husband's share in the joint family
property. Similarly, Pushpshree, as the widow of Arvind's son Anurag, is entitled to a share in
the property. The partition of the joint family property in 1950 did not exclude Mohini or
Pushpshree from their entitlement to a share in the property. Therefore, both Mohini and
Pushpshree have a legal right to claim a share in the undivided property.

8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether the plaint is maintainable?

The plaintiff, Mohini, holds legal standing to assert her claim over the property. As the widow of
Rishi, she is entitled to inherit her deceased husband's property under Hindu law, especially in
the absence of male heirs in the family. Mohini's entitlement is further reinforced by her
designation as the beneficiary in the will executed by Arvind, solidifying her claim to the
property.

Mohini has been in continuous possession of the entire property since the death of Arvind, in
accordance with the directions outlined in his will. By managing the property and exercising
control over its income, Mohini has effectively demonstrated adverse possession. This
uninterrupted possession over a significant period bolsters her claim to the property.

Mohini initiated the suit for possession of the property in 1994, rendering any transfer or
disagreement over ownership contingent upon the court's final decision. Consequently, the plaint
is maintainable as it seeks to resolve the ongoing dispute over property ownership and
possession.

In the case of "Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major" (2009), the court established that a suit for
possession of property remains maintainable if the plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of
ownership or possession. Mohini has satisfactorily demonstrated her prima facie ownership and
possession of the property, thus affirming the maintainability of the plaint.

In light of the aforementioned arguments and legal provisions, the plaintiff maintains that the
plaint is indeed maintainable. The court is urged to proceed with adjudicating the dispute over
property ownership and possession accordingly.

Issue 2: Whether the adoption of Anurag is valid?

The adoption of Anurag by Rishi and Mohini is indeed valid under Hindu Law, and this assertion
is supported by pertinent legal provisions and case precedents:

9
Hindu Law recognizes adoption as a means of conferring familial status and inheritance rights
upon a child. While the absence of a formal adoption deed may raise questions, it's crucial to
note that Hindu Law emphasizes the substance of adoption over mere formalities. The act of
adoption itself, accompanied by essential religious ceremonies and genuine intention, is what
validates the adoption, rather than the existence of a written document.

As elucidated in the case of N L Manjunatha & Anr. v. B L Ananda, the court emphasized
that the absence of an adoption deed does not invalidate adoption if the requisite ceremonies and
consents are established. The court underscored that the essence of adoption lies in the
performance of ceremonies and genuine consent, rather than the production of a written
document. This ruling reinforces the principle that adherence to religious customs and fulfillment
of essential requirements validate adoption under Hindu Law.

Furthermore, the prevalence of adoption according to religious customs in Hindu families has
been acknowledged and respected by courts. As long as the essential rituals of giving and
acceptance are performed, and there is a genuine intention to confer parental status upon the
adopted child, courts have consistently upheld such adoptions as valid.

In the landmark case of Gulab Chand v. Bajrang Das (AIR 1963 SC 1633), the Supreme Court
affirmed the validity of adoptions performed according to religious customs, emphasizing the
importance of genuine acceptance and intention in validating the adoption. This precedent
further solidifies the validity of Anurag's adoption by Rishi and Mohini, as it was performed in
accordance with established religious customs.

Therefore, considering the adherence to religious customs, genuine acceptance, and the absence
of any legal impediments, the adoption of Anurag by Rishi and Mohini stands as valid under
Hindu Law.

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

Both Mohini and Pushpshree assert valid claims to a share in the undivided property, backed by
significant legal principles and relevant case laws:

Mohini's Claim:

10
 • As the widow of Rishi, Mohini is entitled to her husband's share in the joint family
property, a right recognized and protected under Hindu Law. The Hindu Succession Act
ensures that widows have inheritance rights, allowing them to inherit their deceased
husband's share in the ancestral property.

• Under Hindu law, a Hindu widow can claim her right in the property of her deceased
husband primarily under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This section
grants a Hindu widow ownership rights over the property of her deceased husband to the
same extent as if she had acquired it by inheritance. It ensures that a Hindu widow has a
right to inherit her husband's property and become the absolute owner of such property
upon his death. Additionally, various judicial interpretations and case laws further
elucidate the rights of Hindu widows in property matters.

Pushpshree's Claim:

• Similarly, Pushpshree, as the widow of Arvind's son Anurag, is also entitled to a share in
the property. Hindu Law recognizes widows as legal heirs and provides them with rights
to inheritance.

• In Hindu law, a father-in-law cannot typically exclude his daughter-in-law from

inheriting the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property through a will. The daughter-in-
law has a legal right to inherit her husband's share in the HUF property, subject to certain
conditions and exceptions as per the Hindu Succession Act

• In the case of Satya v. Teja Singh (1975), the Supreme Court of India affirmed the rights
of widows and daughters-in-law to inherit ancestral property. The court held that a widow
cannot be arbitrarily excluded from her husband's ancestral property through a will,
emphasizing the protection provided to widows and daughters-in-law under Hindu law.

• 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.

11
Partition and Inheritance Rights:

• The partition of the joint family property in 1950 did not exclude Mohini or Pushpshree
from their entitlement to a share in the property. Their rights to inheritance are
independent of the partition and are protected under Hindu Law.

• Case law such as "Ramesh Chandra vs. Sant Lal" (AIR 1973 SC 954) reaffirms the
inheritance rights of widows under Hindu Law, further bolstering Mohini and
Pushpshree's claims to a share in the undivided property.

In summary, both Mohini and Pushpshree possess legitimate claims to a share in the undivided
property, as recognized and protected by Hindu Law and supported by relevant legal precedents
and case laws. Their rights to inheritance are fundamental and cannot be arbitrarily denied.

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

The validity of the will made by Arvind in favor of Mohini is a critical aspect of this case, and it
is indeed valid under Hindu Law for the following substantive reasons:

Under Hindu law, for a will to be considered valid, it must adhere to certain requisites:

1. Testamentary Capacity: The person making the will must be of sound mind and capable of
understanding the consequences of their actions.

2. Free Will: The will must be made voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence from
others.

3. Legal Formalities: The will must be in writing and signed by the testator (person making the
will) or by someone else on their behalf in their presence and by their direction. Additionally, it
must be attested by at least two witnesses.

4. Clear Expression of Intent: The document must clearly express the testator's intention to
dispose of their property after their death.

5. Revocability: The testator must have the right to revoke or amend the will during their
lifetime.

12
These requisites ensure that the will accurately reflects the testator's wishes and that it is legally
enforceable after their demise

Arvind possessed the necessary legal capacity to make a will, as he was of sound mind and
understanding at the time of its execution. Hindu Law, as codified in the Indian Succession Act,
1925, allows individuals to dispose of their property through wills if they are of sound mind and
understanding.

The will was executed before Arvind's demise, in compliance with the statutory requirements set
forth in the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 63 of the Act mandates that a will must be
executed with testamentary intent, by a person of sound mind, and signed by the testator in the
presence of at least two witnesses who also attest the will in the presence of the testator.

One significant case law related to the validity of a will by a Hindu male is "Ramchandra
Shrinivas Nayak v. Govindrao Keshavrao Dattatreya Bapat" (1982). In this case, the
Supreme Court of India reiterated the essential requirements for a valid will under Hindu law.
The court emphasized that for a will to be valid, it must comply with the provisions outlined in
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This includes the requirement for the will to be in
writing, signed by the testator (person making the will) or by someone else on their behalf in
their presence and by their direction, and attested by at least two witnesses. The case reaffirmed
the importance of adherence to legal formalities in order to ensure the validity of a will under
Hindu law.

Arvind's will clearly outlines the distribution of his property, specifying Mohini as the manager
until the beneficiaries attain majority. Such clarity and specificity in the provisions of the will are
indicative of the testator's intent and ensure that the property is managed and distributed
according to his wishes.

The Indian Succession Act, 1925, allows individuals to dispose of their property through wills,
provided that the provisions are clear and unambiguous, thereby enabling the orderly transfer of
assets upon the testator's demise.

While it is true that Anupransh's consent was not obtained during the making of the will, Hindu
Law does not mandate the consent of beneficiaries for the validity of a will. The testator has the

13
absolute right to dispose of his property as he sees fit, and the absence of consent from
beneficiaries does not invalidate the will.

In the case, "Girdhari Lal v. Mahant Ganga Das" (1937), the Privy Council emphasized that a
testator's freedom to dispose of their property by will is a fundamental right, and beneficiaries
cannot challenge the validity of a will merely because they disagree with its provisions or were
not consulted beforehand. This case further solidified the notion that the consent of beneficiaries
is not a prerequisite for the validity of a will under Hindu law.

One significant case law related to the concept of testamentary freedom and the absence of
mandatory consent from beneficiaries is the case of "Dhunputh Lall v. Russomoy Dhur
Chowdhry" (1868). In this case, the Privy Council held that a testator has the absolute right to
dispose of their property by will as they see fit, regardless of the wishes or expectations of
potential beneficiaries. This case established the principle of testamentary freedom in Indian law,
emphasizing the autonomy of the testator in making decisions regarding the distribution of their
estate through a will

Case law such as Mallappa vs. Chanbasappa (AIR 1965 Mys 237) further supports the validity
of wills made in accordance with the Indian Succession Act. In this case, the court upheld the
validity of a will despite the absence of consent from beneficiaries, emphasizing the testator's
right to dispose of his property according to his wishes.

In conclusion, the will made by Arvind in favor of Mohini is indeed valid under Hindu Law, as it
meets the requisite legal standards of capacity, execution, clarity, and specificity. The provisions
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, support the validity of such wills, and legal precedents
affirm the testator's autonomy in disposing of his property. Therefore, Mohini is entitled to the
rights conferred upon her by Arvind's valid will.

14
 PRAYER

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

1. Declare the plaint as maintainable and proceed with the adjudication of the legal issues
raised therein.

2. Affirm the validity of the adoption of Anurag by Rishi and Mohini, recognizing Anurag
as a rightful heir to the family property.

3. Uphold the rights of Mohini and Pushpshree to claim their respective shares in the
undivided property, in accordance with Hindu Law principles of inheritance.

4. Validate the will made by Arvind in favor of Mohini, acknowledging its legality and
enforceability.

5. Grant possession of the property to Mohini, as per the terms outlined in the will made by
Arvind, ensuring that justice is served in accordance with the principles of equity and
fairness under Hindu Law.

The plaintiff humbly seeks the Court's favorable consideration of these prayers and trusts that
justice will be duly served.

15