we had posted the query and yet to hear any opinion on the same. Can some one pl examine issues and come up with an opinion pl?
I draw reference of the
THE HINDU SUCCESSION (KARNATAKA AMENDMENT) ACT, 1990 for this suit filed in Bangalore-Karnataka
Events relevant to the issue
Father (hereinafter referred to as ‘F’ ) of three sisters (S1, S2 AND S3) and two brothers( B1 AND B2) passed away on 26th June 2002. During lifetime he had executed first will registered on 24/01/1991 and second (last will) will registered on 28/01/1995 clearly cancelling the first will referring the registration reference and the reasons for cancelling the earlier will. The last will referred to two properties, self acquired and ancestral. The self acquired property namely a site in Bangalore, and so stated in his will, was bequeathed to two sons. This in contradiction to the first will in which a portion was to the three sisters. The said property in Bangalore was in possession and enjoyment of the two brothers B1 and B2, for over ten years, since 2002 and khata was also changed in revenue records in March 2004.
The dates of birth / marriage dates of the heirs of 'F'
S1 23/04/1950 31/05/1970
S2 18/08/1955 22/05/1977
S3 20/08/1957 26/06/1981
B1 05/10/1952 18/10/1981
B2 10/11/1959 06/05/1988
Whereas, in the year 1983 a partition suit was filed by two brothers of ‘F’ in respect of ancestral property situated in a village in Karnataka, (father of 'F' died intestate) the suit was in progress for eight years and with a view to settle the issue, the five brothers ( F was represented by B1 as his power of attorney holder ) executed a settlement agreement, which was filed before the Hon Court seeking consent decree, which was passed by the Hon Court recording the said agreement in the suit proceedings. The agreement listed, not only the ancestral properties but also various other self acquired properties of the five brothers, as the respective person’s list of properties to his name. This listing was so done even though the original suit between 'F' and his brothers was in respect of only the ancestral properties situated in a village in Karnataka and the self earned properties of the brothers was never a subject matter in the original suit.
Now, on 28/02/2012 two of the sisters S1 and S2 filed a suit against brothers B1, B2 and sister S3, seeking one fifth share of all the properties listed in the settlement agreement filed in the partition suit of 1983 referred to in paragraph two above. The suit did not refer to the property at Bangalore alone but all the properties listed in the earlier suit. Whereas several of the properties listed were sold during the lifetime of ‘F’ and also a portion of the property at Bangalore during the lifetime of 'F' and referred in the last will the reasons for sale of the same as towards celebration of marriage of daughters in the year 1981.
From actions of the three sisters, it appears that the third sister S3, though named as third defendant, is in fact antagonistic towards the brothers considering that they were all in close contact and collusion, timing the filing of suit on very same day a wedding was concluded in which all the five members attended amicably at that time.
Questions:
Under HSA amendment 2005, will the sisters S1, S2 and S3 derive any right in the above matter considering their respective dates of birth and dates of marriage?
In the event, the list of properties contained self acquired properties, in the above referred settlement agreement, entered into by 'F' and his four brothers, are the properties viewed as ancestral by virtue of having been listed in an earlier partition suit?
Does the property listed in the said settlement agreement (bearing the seal of the Court with the original suit Number), of 'F' and his brothers in the earlier suit of 1983 , become ancestral?
Does 'F' have the right to register will bequeathing property acquired in the said settlement agreement at his choice?
Since B1 having signed the said settlement agreement, albeit as attorney for ‘F’, was confirming that the landed property at Bangalore as ancestral?
In the event the third defendant S3, files a written statement agreeing with contentions of plaintiffs S1 and S2, will such reversal of roles as supporting factor in favour of the plaintiffs?
Do the sisters S1, S2 and S3 have any right to claim share of property in view of the respective dates on which they were married?
The defendant brothers B1 B2 had verbally communicated to the sisters about the terms of the last will, after demise of 'F', since the property at Bangalore was the only property which was of value and the ancestral properties were in possession of others and proving difficult to recover. Will the last will registered be valid and binding?
