JAYAMMA versus MARIA BAI DEAD BY PROPOSED LRS. AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 175 · Decided: 28-07-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

JAYAMMA 
A 
v. 
MARIA BAI DEAD BY PROPOSED LRS. AND ANR. 
JULY 28, 2004 
[S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; Sections 2(12),(17), 21and61: 
Execution. of Will by testator in favour of his relative-Application 
for grant of letters of administration filed by holder of the Will-Factum C 
of execution of Will denied by the wife and children of the testator-Trial 
Court holding that the testator executed the Will with full knowledge, in 
sound state of mind-Appeal allowed by High Court holding that the Will 
was not maintainable as the subject matter of testament is agricultural land 
and occupancy rights thereof could not be assigned-On appeal, Held: A D 
Court empowered to grant a letter of administration generally may not go 
into the question of title of property sought to be bequeathed-However, 
when a statutory embargo exists on the execution of a Will, Court could 
determine the question-Jn view of the provisions of the Act, Legislature 
intends that the land should not be allowed to go into the hands of a 
stranger-Any assignment made in contravention of the Act would invalidate E 
such assignment-Assignment made within prohibited period-Having 
regard to the provisions of the Act, transfer of agricultural land within 
occupancy right permissible only in favour of one of the heirs and not to 
other-Interpretation of Statutes-Indian Succession Act, 1925-Sections 
276 and 299. 
F 
Words and Phrases : 
'Family', 'joint family-Meaning of the context of Karnataka Land 
Reforms Act. 
Appellant, holder of a Will, filed an application for grant of letters 
G 
of administration enclosing therewith a copy of the Will purported to 
have been executed by testator, husband of one of the respondents. The 
factum of the execution of the Will was denied by the respondent and 
children of the testator. Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the H 
175 
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A testator executed the Will with full knowledge, in sound state of mind 
and it was not obtained fraudulently by the appellant, the holder. High 
Court held that the application for grant of letters of administration 
was not maintainable in terms of Section 61 of the Karnataka Land 
Reforms Act since the subject matter of testament was agricultural 
B land and occupancy rights thereof could not have been assigned. Hence 
the present appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that the trial Court had no 
jurisdiction to go into the question as to the title of the property while 
disposing of an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession 
C Act; and that the expression 'family' was used in Section 61 of 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act must be given extended meaning so as 
to include the persons related to the testator by legitimate kinship in 
it. 
D 
Respondents submitted that the appellant was not a family 
member of the testator. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Sine qua non for obtaining the status of occupancy 
E of tenancy is that the person concerned must be a tenant on the 
appointed day. (181-F) 
1.2. The Court empowered to grant a letter of administration 
although ordinarily may not go into the question of title in respect of 
F property sought to be bequeathed by the testator the situation would be 
different where the authority of the testator to execute a Will in relation 
to the subject matter thereof is in question. When a statutory embargo 
exists on execution of a Will, the Court shall not refuse to determine the 
question as regard validity therecf, as in terms of the provisions of.a 
G statute, the same would be void ab initio. (181-H; 182-A-B) 
1.3. Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms 
Act lays down that any transfer ofland in contravention of sub-section 
(1) shall be invalid whereupon the same shall vest in the State Government 
free from all encumbrances. The legislative intent that the land should 
H not be allowed to go to the hands.ofa stranger to the family is, therefore, 
JJ 
J-.; 
JA YAMMA v. MARIA BAI [SINHA, J.] 
177 
manifest. Whereas in terms of Section 21 of the Act, strangers to the A 
family of the tenant to come upon the land is not allowed, the tenor of 
Section 61 is that except partition amongst the co-sharers, no transfer 
of the property, in any manner, is permissible. (182-F-G] 
· 1;4. When an assignment or transfer is made in contravention of B 
statutory provisioos,_the consequence whereof would be that

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.