MOOT PROBLEM-3

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

AT UTTAR PRADESH
(Filed under Hindu Succession Act,1956)

In matter of :

Anjali……………….………………………………………………….Plaintiff

Kundan Singh and Others……………………………………….Respondent

Written submission on behalf of RESPONDENT

2
 Table of content
1. Table of Authorities………………………………………………….(4)
2. References…………………………………………………………….(4)
3. Constitution and statutes…………………………………………..(5)
4. Jurisdiction………………………………………………….………………(6)
5. Synopsis of facts………………………………………….………………..(5)
6. Issues…………………………………………………………………………(9)
7. Summary of Arguments…………………………………………………..(10)
8. Arguments/Pleadings……………………………………………………..(11)
9. Player…………………………………………………………………………(17)

3
 Table of Authorities
● Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs V. Manjunath and another (14th
december, 2021)

● Ram Briksha And Another vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation and others

● Rao balwant singh vs rani kishori 1898

● Archana vs Deputy Director of consolidation, Amroha and others,2015

References

● Indiankanoon.org

● Legal-wires.com

● Lawyerservices.in

● Lawoctopus.com

4
● indiatoday .in

Constitution And The Statutes

● Constitution of India, 1950

● Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

● Transfer of property Act, 1882

● Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act , 1950

● Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holding Act,1953

● Civil Procedure Code, 1908

5
 JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has the jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of
the present case by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The respondent humbly submits this memorandum in response to the plaint filed before
this Hon’ble Court of Allahabad.

6
 Synopsis of Facts

There is a land situated in Uttar Pradesh of area 7000 Hectare, stated by Anjali
the married coparcener, that this is an ancestral property coming from the time of
her grandfather, Ram singh.
After the death of her grandfather, the land was inherited by his two sons , Malik
Singh and Roshan singh (her father) and their sons as well. All of them at that
time formed the Hindu Joint Family governed by Mitakshara law of Hindu
coparceners of which Roshan Singh was the “Karta” and acted in such capacity
till 1989.
Roshan Singh executed a sale deed dated 16/11/2005, of some portions of
disputed land in favour of one “Kundan Singh” and his name is mutated on
revenue record along with other co- sharers. All the members of the Joint Hindu
Family consented to the sale deed executed in favour of ‘Kundan Singh’ except
the daughter of the Karta (Anjali).Moreover the consent of the daughter has not
been even obtained due to the reason that she is neither a part of Joint Hindu
Family nor a Coparcener to this context.
For the same, she filed an objection dated 4/4/2013 under sec. 9(2) of the UP
consolidation of Holdings Act,1953 for the direction to effect a partition of her ¼
th share in the property and to delete the name of ‘Kundan Singh’ from revenue
record, instead add her name along with other co sharers. She does not contest
the shares of other co sharers but she is pleading for her share in the disputed
Agricultural Land on the basis of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
as sec 4(2) was deleted and sec 6 (1)(c),created same liability on the daughter
as of a son as such the provisions of HSA, 1956 will apply to agricultural lands
also.However, the sale deed was executed on 16/11/2005 in favour of Kundan
Singh and on its basis, his name is mutated in the revenue records by an order
dated 20/12/2005 but as per the aggrieved daughter, Roshan Singh had no right
to execute the sale deed dated 16/11/2005 and the deed is void. As the name in
the revenue record was mutated on the basis of void sale deed and as such the
name was liable to be deleted.
Hence the case is contested by Kundan Singh as well on the basis that the
disputed land is an agricultural land and would be governed by the UP Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the provisions of Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 are not applicable to it.

7
 Decision of Lower court
The petitioner had no right in the disputed land during the lifetime of her father,
Roshan Singh and the petition of the daughter is not maintainable.The petitioner
filed an appeal from the aforesaid order statement officer consolidation a firm the
findings of consolidation officer and dismissed The Appeal by order dated
15/3/2014 the petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order Deputy
Director of consolidation by order dated 15/6/2014 dismissed the revision.

8
 Issues:

● Is further appeal in the High court for the same matter may Anjali
maintainable?

● Do Anjali have the right to claim any share from the ancestral property?

● Can Anjli Sue the Karta of the family for such a transfer?

● Will Hindu Succession Act prevail over the specific Act?

● Can Anjali claim his share of property for buyer of the property i.e.Kundan
singh?

9
 Summary of Arguments
● Is further appeal in the High court for the same matter may Anjali
maintainable?
:The second appeal can be filed only if there exists Substantial
question of law.In the case of question of law would be substantial if it is of
general public importance or which directly and substantially affect the right of
parties.

● Do Anjali have the right to claim any share from the ancestral property?
:Anjali does not have the right to claim any share as the Class-1 hier
are still alive. The property will first be divided between Malik sing and
Roshan sing those who are Class 1 heir and after their death then it will be
transferred further.

● Can Anjli Sue the Karta of the family for such a transfer?
:Anjali cannot see the Karta as Karta has the ultimate right to transfer
the property, sell the property and prepare a sale deed, said the Supreme
Court on 13 December 2020.

● Will Hindu Succession Act prevail over the specific Act?

:As per the current case the specific act will prevail over the Hindu
Succession act, that means the UP act will prevail over Hindu Succession
Amendment Act 2005

● Can Anjali claim his share of property for buyer of the property i.e.Kundan
singh?
:As per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act 1882 there is no such
legal responsibility of buyer to give such share.

10
 Arguments/ Pleadings
● Is further appeal in the High court for the same matter may Anjali
maintainable?

Your Lordship the decree or judgement Caused by an appellate Civil Court

in the first field can be challenged by way of a second appeal before The
High Court. If the case and was a substantial question of law of the second
appeal can be filed even against an exparte decree/judgement for first
appellate Court .

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
1. A judgment/decree can be challenged in the first appeal on varied grounds
both on the basis of facts of the case and as well the legal interpretation of
various legal provisions involved.
2. For instance a party may raise objections as regards the territorial and
pecuniary competence of a court passing the challenged judgment and
decree.
3. If there has been a failure of justice on account of such incompetence.
4. Equally, in case all the necessary parties were not joined in the original
suit, a challenge to the judgment decree of such a court can be
maintained.
5. An appeal may be as well to challenge the interpretation of law as the legal
provisions applied by the subordinate court while making the judgment/
decree any error, defect as irregularity in any proceeding before the
subordinate court affecting the merits of the case as the jurisdiction of such
a court may as well be a sustainable ground while making an appeal.
6. The second appeal can be filed only if there exists a substantial question
of law. In the case the question of law would be substantial if it is of
general public importance or which directly and substantially affects rights
of the parties.

Your lordship, Anjali , daughter of Roshan Singh Who is Karta of the family
doesn't not come up with relevant grounds that are necessary for an

11
 appeal in the High Court. Even a fluid converter it is given that this specific
act will prevail over the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 and
there is no question of arising any writ petition under this case.

● Do Anjali have the right to claim any share from the ancestral
property?

Your lordship according to Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005 section8.

General rules of succession in the case of males.―The property of a male Hindu
dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:― (a)
firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b)
secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives
specified in class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two
classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no
agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. and;
Section 9 Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule.―Among the heirs
specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously and to the
exclusion of all other heirs; those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to
those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in
the third entry; and so on in succession.
Your lordship Anjali the Plaintiff does not belong to the closer tyre of class as
defined under the Hindu Succession act if first heirer of the the property our
class1 that are Roshan Singh and malik the rights of coparcener will be
transferred to Anjali after the death of Roshan Singh and there are no other Male
coparcener of same class existing, even Clients of coparcenary will firstly stand
with the brothers of A and B that are the son of Roshan Singh.The rights of
daughters are equal to the son according to Hindu Succession act but the rights
of son will be applicable after the death of class 1 heir and the the class1 still
existed.Plaintiff can ask for his share only if there is a situation of partition of the
property and his share will be given as other Coparcener, There is no such
Partition in this question.

12
 ● Can Anjli Sue the Karta of the family for such a transfer?

Your Lordship Question arise where the coparcener can sue the Karta of the
family for such transfer for entering into such transaction of selling the
coparcenary property, for this I want to court a landmark judgement of Supreme
Court on 13 December 2021 of BEEREDDY DASARATHARAMI REDDY …..Vs
V. MANJUNATH AND ANOTHER

Sub-Whether Karta of a HUF has the power to sell immovable property belonging
to the family without consent of all the coparceners of the family.
The Supreme Court in this case was considering an appeal where the action of
Karta to sale the property of the HUF was held to be invalid in view of the fact
that the son of the Karta had not signed the sale agreement and it was
contended that the Karta had no power to sale the property.
The Supreme Court while dealing with the law on the subject held that Right of
the Karta to execute agreement to sell or sale deed of a joint Hindu family
property is settled and is beyond cavil vide several judgments of this Court
including Sri Narayan Bal and Others v. Sridhar Sutar and Others(1996) 8 SCC
54(SC) wherein it has been held that a joint Hindu family is capable of acting
through its Karta or adult member of the family in management of the joint Hindu
family property.
A coparcener who has right to claim a share in the joint Hindu family estate
cannot seek injunction against the Karta restraining him from dealing with or
entering into a transaction from sale of the joint Hindu family property, albeit post
alienation has a right to challenge the alienation if the same is not for legal
necessity or for betterment of the estate. Where a Karta has alienated a joint
Hindu family property for value either for legal necessity or benefit of the estate it
would bind the interest of all undivided members of the family even when they
are minors or widows. There are no specific grounds that establish the existence
of legal necessity and the existence of legal necessity depends upon facts of
each case. The Karta enjoys wide discretion in his decision over the existence of
legal necessity and as to in what way such necessity can be fulfilled.
The legal necessity in this case was fulfilled as by its own affidavit HUF
contended that it needed money at the time of sale.
Thus, the appeal of the buyer was allowed and the HUF was directed to transfer
the property as per the sale agreement.

13
Your lordship the Karta do not have liability over this single member of the family
has the liability of maintaining the whole family equally is the manager of family
for managing the day to day affairs of the family referring to the above case , held
by supreme court of India we can say that Anjali e who is the coparcener in the
family cannot sue you karta that is Roshan Singh for such transfer of property to
Kundan Singh.

● Will Hindu Succession Act prevail over the specific Act?

West U.P. Sugar Mills Association vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 22 April,
2020 The Court held:
“8. It would be seen that so far as clause (1) of Article 254 is concerned it clearly
lays down that where there is a direct collision between a provision of a law
made by the State and that made by Parliament with respect to one of the
matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of
clause (2), the State law would be void to the extent of the repugnancy. This
naturally means that where both the State and Parliament occupy the field
contemplated by the Concurrent List then the Act passed by Parliament being
prior in point of time will prevail, and consequently, the State Act will have to yield
to the Central Act. In fact, the scheme of the Constitution is a scientific and
equitable distribution of legislative powers between Parliament and the State
Legislatures. First, regarding the matters contained in List I, i.e., the Union List to
the Seventh Schedule, Parliament alone is empowered to legislate, and the State
Legislatures have no authority to make any law in respect of the Entries
contained in List I.
Where, however, a law made by the State Legislature on a subject covered by
the Concurrent List is inconsistent with and repugnant to a previous law made by
Parliament, then such a law can be protected by obtaining the assent of the
President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The result of obtaining the
assent of the President would be that so far as the State Act is concerned, it will
prevail in the State and overrule the provisions of the Central Act in their
applicability to the State only. Such a state of affairs will exist only until
Parliament may at any time make a law adding to, or amending, varying or
repealing the law made by the State Legislature under the proviso to Article 254.

14
Your Lordship referring to the above case we can say that in the current situation
the specific act that is The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act
1950 will prevail over the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005.

● Can Anjali claim his share of property for buyer of the property
i.e.Kundan singh?

Your Lordship according to transfer of property Act 1882 section 7.

Persons competent to transfer.—Every person competent to contract and
entitled to transferable property, or authorised to dispose of transferable
property not his own, is competent to transfer such property either wholly
or in part and either absolutely or conditionally, in the circumstances, to the
extent and in the manner, allowed and prescribed by any law for the time
being in force.
As per the case Kundan Singh's name is mutated in revenue records by
orderAccording to the questions and referring to the claws mentioned
above we can say that kurta is having power to sell the property to Kundan
Singh. Anjali who is the coparcener can only claim the property at the time
of partition of such ancestral property but hence in the case the property is
transferred to Kundan Singh she cannot claim the property from Kundan
Singh.
Your lordship the main question that arise in the case is that whether the
coparcener married daughter Anjali is having the right over the property or
having right to sue the Karta of the family that is Roshan Singh so hair
referring to case Beereddy Dasaratharami versus Manjunath and others
13 December 2021 coparcener who has right to claim a share in joint
Hindu family as state cannot seek injunction against the current are
restraining from dealing with or entering into a transaction from sale of joint
Hindu family property albeit post elimination has a right to challenge the
elimination if the same is not for legal necessity or for betterment of the
state where a Karta has eliminated the joint Hindu family property for value
either for legal necessity or benefit for the estate it would bind in the
interest of all undivided family members in the family even when they are -
or window they are no specific ground that establish the existence of legal
message city and the existence of legal necessity depend upon fact of

15
each case the Karta enjoy a wide discretion in his decision over existence
of legal necessity and as to in what way such necessity can be fulfilled.

16
 PRAYER

In light of the issue raised by the plaintiff,argument advanced and authorities

cited, the counsel for the Respondent humbly pray that the Hon’ble Court be
pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:
1. That the appeal filed by plaintiff is frivolous, immature and hence the same
must be dismissed.
2. That the judgement given by the Lower court and authorities is very much
deserved to be confirmed in respect to the plaintiff.
3. That the coparcener cannot sue the karta for sale of property for the good
or family.

And any other relief that the honorable Court may pleased to grant in the interest
of Justice, equity and good conscience.All of which is humbly submitted.

17
Name - Lalit Kumar
Class Roll no.- 191871
Section-H
Examination Roll no- 19309806446
Campus Law Centre
Moot Problem 3
Respondant

18