Moot Research on the case Achammal & Ors. V. LRS of Rajamanickam AIR 2010 Mad 34 (on behalf of Respondent) concerning Transfer of Property Act, 1882

1. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 1
Table of Contents
Index of Authorities...................................................................................................2
Statement of Facts.....................................................................................................3
Statement of Jurisdiction ..........................................................................................5
Issues Presented ........................................................................................................6
Summary of Arguments ............................................................................................7
Arguments Advanced ................................................................................................9
Prayer.......................................................................................................................14

2. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Books Cited:
1. Law of Wills alongwith Model Forms 2017 by J D Jaibhave.
2. Mulla, Hindu Law, 7th Ed 2015, Lexis Nexis Publication.
3. Dr. Poonam Prdhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures 12th Ed 2016, Lexis
Nexis Publication.
4. Srinivasan M.N.s: Commentary on The Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance
Act, 1955, 3rd Revised New Ed.
5. Malik B.s: Commentary on the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, 3rd New Edn.
Cases Referred:
1. Thakur Mohd. Ismail vs Thakur Sabir Ali (AIR 1962 SC1722)
2. Mohit Bhargava vs Bharat Bhushan Bhargava & Ors SLP(C) No.7742 of
2006)
3. Uma Devi Nambiar Vs. T.C.Sithan (Dead) (2004) 2 CTC 287
4. Jarnail Singh vs Narain Singh And Ors. (AIR 1984 P H 181)
5. State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 481, 655
6. Rajrani sehgal vs.Parshottam lal (AIR 1992 Delhi 134)
Websites Cited:
1. Manuptra.com
2. SCConline.com
3. Indiakanoon.org
4. LegalCrystal.com
5. Legalservicesindia.org

3. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The respondent had, out of the total extent of 1.33 acres, in R.S.No.65/4, in
No.137, Vilunthamavadi village, an extent of 67 cents, on the western
portion of the land, had originally, belonged to Rethina Koundar, the
husband of the Achammal the first appellant in the suit and adoptive
father of the second appellant. Rethina Koundar, while in a sound and
disposing state of mind and bodily health, had bequeathed all his
properties, including the 67 cents in the suit properties, under a Will, dated
25.2.1971. The Will has been duly attested, in accordance with law and it
has been registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Thirupundi, as
document No.71, in Book 3 of the year 1971.
2. As per the Will of Rethina Koundar, the entire extent of 67 cents in the suit
properties had been given to his adopted son, who is the second appellant
in the suit. After the death of Rethina Koundar, the second appellant had
succeeded to the entire properties, in accordance with the Will. Thus, the
second appellant had got into possession of the land with an extent of 67
cents, in R.S.No.65/4. The patta had also been transferred in his name and
he has also been paying the land revenue to the Government.
3. The second appellant was a minor on the date of the death of the adoptive
father, Rethina Koundar. Therefore, the first appellant, being the adoptive
mother, was in possession and enjoyment of the properties given to the
second appellant by Rethina Koundar, by his Will, dated 25.2.1971. The
first appellant, as the adoptive mother of the second appellant and as his
guardian, had sold an extent of 7 cents, on the western portion, in the suit
survey number, to one Mariyappan.

4. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 4
4. After attaining majority, the second appellant, as the absolute owner of the
entire 60 cents, had sold the said properties to the respondent, under a sale
deed, dated 10.9.1987, for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/-. The second
appellant had received the entire sale consideration and had discharged
the loan amounts incurred by him for his family expenses and at the time
of his marriage.
5. It has been further submitted that, immediately after the execution of the
sale deed, the second appellant had put the respondent in possession of
the 60 cents of land. Thereafter, the respondent had also got the patta
transferred in his name, in patta No.855.
6. In the Will, dated 25.2.1971, executed by Rethina Koundar, the properties,
set out in the schedule “B” of the Will, had been given to the second
appellant. The Testator, Rethina Koundar, had added a condition in the
Will, in respect of the properties given to the second appellant.
Accordingly, the second appellant and his heirs should enjoy the
properties, without the power of alienation.

5. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of
Rajasthan, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081. The
memorandum for Respondent in the matter of Achammal & Ors. V. LRS of
Rajamanickam set forth the Facts, Contentions and Arguments present in the
case.
1 (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the
time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by
any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a
substantial question of law.
(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.
(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the
substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it
shall formulate that question.
(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the
hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question : Provided
that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court
to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not
formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.]

6. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 6
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether the Will, dated 25.2.1971, written by Rethina Koundar, is valid?
2. Whether the sale deed, dated 10.9.1987, is valid? Whether the claim of the
second appellant that the sale deed had been written fraudulently without
due consideration having been given to the second appellant is true?
3. Whether the bequeathed will is hit by the rule of perpetuity?

7. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the Will, dated 25.2.1971, written by Rethina Koundar, is valid?
Any person capable of holding property can be a legatee under a will and
therefore a minor, lunatic, a corporation, a Hindu deity and other juristic person
can be a legatee. It is provided under the act that if the minor person has been
named as legatee by a testator then a guardian should be appointed by the
testator himself to manage the bequeathed property. In this case, the first
appellant, wife of the testator and adoptive mother of the second appellant has
appointed as guardian of the second appellant by the testator himself.
Hence, the will made by the testator is flawless in the point that all the
requirements has already met and none remains open to further interpretation
anymore.
2. Whether the sale deed, dated 10.9.1987, is valid? Whether the claim of the
second appellant that the sale deed had been written fraudulently without
due consideration having been given to the second appellant is true?
The second appellant, as the absolute owner of the entire property, had sold the
said properties to the respondent, under a sale deed, dated 10.9.1987, for a
consideration of Rs.14, 000/-. The second appellant had received the entire sale
consideration and had discharged the loan amounts incurred by him for his
family expenses and at the time of his marriage. It has been further submitted
that, immediately after the execution of the sale deed, the second appellant had
put the respondent in possession of the 60 cents of land. Thereafter, the
respondent had also got the patta transferred in his name, in “patta No.855”.
The Testator, Rethina Koundar, had added a condition in the Will, in respect of

8. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 8
the properties given to the second appellant. Accordingly, the second appellant
and his heirs should enjoy the properties, without the power of alienation.
However, the said condition is void, as it imposes an absolute restraint on
alienation and as the second appellant had taken the properties given to him
under the Will, absolutely. Therefore, the sale of the suit properties by the
second appellant, in favor of the respondent, is perfectly valid.
3. Whether the bequeathed will is hit by the rule of perpetuity?
The bequest to the second appellant does not hit by the rule of perpetuity and
therefore, it is valid. Since the Testator had given an absolute estate to the
second appellant, the respondent can claim absolute right in the suit properties.
According to the Will of Rethina Koundar, marked, the first appellant was to take
care of the second appellant, who was a minor at the time when the Will was
created, till he attains majority. It is necessary to understood that the first
appellant was mere a life holder of the testate property, but the absolute rights
was vested in the second appellant only.

9. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether the Will, dated 25.2.1971, written by Rethina Koundar, is valid?
The testator, Mr. Rethina Koundar in mentally sound state and with bona fide
intent, made a testamentary and bequeathed all his properties to his minor
adoptive son, absolutely. Also, the testamentary instrument i.e., Will have been
duly registered under section 18(e) of the Registration Act, 1908 in the office of
the Sub Registrar, Thirupundi, as document No.71, in Book 3 of the year 1971.
Also, any person capable of holding property can be a legatee under a will and
therefore a minor, lunatic, a corporation, a Hindu deity and other juristic person
can be a legatee.2 It is provided under the act3 that if the minor person has been
named as legatee by a testator then a guardian should be appointed by the
testator himself to manage the bequeathed property.4 In this case, the first
appellant, wife of the testator and adoptive mother of the second appellant has
appointed as guardian of the second appellant by the testator himself.
Hence, the will made by the testator is flawless in the point that all the
requirements has already met and none remains open to further interpretation
anymore.
2 Chapter 6th of Indian Succession Act, 1925.
3 Section 112 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
4 Thakur Mohd. Ismail vs Thakur Sabir Ali (AIR 1962 SC1722)

10. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 10
2. Whether the sale deed, dated 10.9.1987, is valid? Whether the claim of the
second appellant that the sale deed had been written fraudulently without
due consideration having been given to the second appellant is true?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that after attaining majority, the
second appellant, as the absolute owner of the entire property, had sold the said
properties to the respondent, under a sale deed, dated 10.9.1987, for a
consideration of Rs.14,000/-. The second appellant had received the entire sale
consideration and had discharged the loan amounts incurred by him for his
family expenses and at the time of his marriage. It has been further submitted
that, immediately after the execution of the sale deed, the second appellant had
put the respondent in possession of the 60 cents of land. Thereafter, the
respondent had also got the patta transferred in his name, in “patta No.855”.
The Testator, Rethina Koundar, had added a condition in the Will, in respect of
the properties given to the second appellant. Accordingly, the second appellant
and his heirs should enjoy the properties, without the power of alienation.
However, the said condition is void, as it imposes an absolute restraint on
alienation and as the second appellant had taken the properties given to him
under the Will, absolutely. Therefore, the sale of the suit properties by the
second appellant, in favor of the respondent, is perfectly valid. On the wrong
advice of certain persons, the appellants were attempting to dispossess the

11. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 11
respondent from the suit properties, without initiating legal steps to set aside the
sale deed and to declare it as null and void.5 It is also to be noted that, the first
appellant, as the guardian of the second appellant, had sold 7 cents in the
western portion of the suit survey number to one Mariyappan. Therefore, the
appellants are estopped from contending that the properties given to the second
appellant, under the Will of Rethina Koundar, are inalienable.6
Also, the sale deed, dated 10.9.1987, is a registered document and the second
appellant had clearly stated the reasons for the sale of a portion of the schedule
“B” properties, which had been got by way of a Will written by Rathina koundar
in his favour.7 So, the respondent had obtained the suit properties by way of the
said sale deed. However, it had been found that the possession of the suit
properties has been with the first appellant, in such circumstances, the learned
lower Court had decreed the suit declaring the title of the respondent-plaintiff in
the suit properties and by directing the appellant-defendants to hand over the
possession of the suit properties to the respondent-plaintiff.
5 Mohit Bhargava vs Bharat Bhushan Bhargava & Ors SLP(C) No.7742 of 2006)
6 Uma Devi Nambiar Vs. T.C.Sithan (Dead) (2004) 2 CTC 287
7 Jarnail Singh vs Narain Singh And Ors. (AIR 1984 P H 181)

12. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 12
3. Whether the bequeathed will is hit by the rule of perpetuity?
The bequest to the second appellant does not hit by the rule of perpetuity and
therefore, it is valid. Since the Testator had given an absolute estate to the
second appellant, the respondent can claim absolute right in the suit properties.
According to the Will of Rethina Koundar, marked, the first appellant was to take
care of the second appellant, who was a minor at the time when the Will was
created, till he attains majority.8 It is necessary to understood that the first
appellant was mere a life holder of the testate property, but the absolute rights
was vested in the second appellant only.
And, once an absolute right had been vested in the second appellant, in respect
of the properties bequeathed to him by way of a Will, dated 25.2.1971, no further
condition could have been imposed9, restraining the alienation of the property or
by creating a restriction repugnant to the interest created in such a property.
Further, The Act10, makes it clear that when a Will contains a direction that the
property bequeathed, absolutely, should be applied or enjoyed in a particular
manner, the legatee shall be entitled to receive the said property as if the Will
had contained no such direction.11
8 State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 481, 655
9 Sections 10 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
10 Section 138 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
11 Rajrani sehgal vs.Parshottam lal (AIR 1992 Delhi 134)

13. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 13
Henceforth, the second appellant by the virtue of his rights transferred by sale,
the said property to respondent. So, it cleared two aspects:
i. The title of the property after transfer by the second appellant is vested
to the respondent, and
ii. The Bequest was not hit by the Rule of perpetuity, as the condition of in
alienation was subjective to the first appellant only.
So, the second appellant had sold the properties got by him by way of the Will,
dated 25.2.1971, to the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent has obtained
absolute rights in the suit properties.

14. Counsel on behalf of Respondent 14
PRAYER
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsel for the Respondent humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to
adjudge, hold and declare:
1. That dismisses the second appeal and confirming the judgment and decree
of the Courts below.
2. That passes such decree declaring that the respondent is the true, lawful
and absolute owner of the suit properties.
3. That to grant permanent injunction restraining the appellants and their
men, servants and agents, from, in any manner, interfering with the
respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
4. That provides an alternative relief directing the appellants to put the
respondent in possession of the suit properties.
And pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of equity,
justice and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the respondent shall duty bound
forever pray.
Sd/-
Counsel on behalf of Respondent