MOOT COURT FINAL ASSESSMENT 2025

Akash Malhotra (Hereinafter referred to as “The Deceased”), a Doctor, died after contracting
coronavirus at the age of 61 in 2020.

Due to the want of doctors in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, he continued serving the
Gujarat state Government Post-retirement on the requisition of the Government.

In 1990, He married Shalini, a doctor too, in Ahmedabad by the due observance of the Hindu
rituals in the presence of their friends and relatives. In 1992, they were blessed with a daughter,
whom they named Falguni.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OF THE DECEASED

In 1991, they both purchased a 3BHK flat worth rupees 20 lakhs in Ahmedabad, which was
registered in both their names as co-owners and cohabited there together ever since. They had
raised a bank loan from the SBI bank on Shalini’s account and a sum of 20000 rupees was
deducted every month from Shalini’s salary towards the payment of the EMI of the house loan
for 12 years. And the deceased contributed a total of 1 lakh for the repayment of the loan.

Though in the sale deed and the Record of Rights (ROR), they have been described to be holding
the property in the capacity of husband and wife and it is stated that they are the co-owners of the
property but the nature of co-ownership i.e whether joint tenancy or tenancy in common has not
been specified in the instruments. Further, the mutation certificate was also in the names of both
of them.

Shalini and her daughter were named as nominees in the service book of the deceased for
devolution of pension and other death benefits in the event of his death. Falguni was the nominee
in the life insurance policy with 10 lakhs life cover which the deceased had taken from the Life
Insurance Corporation (LIC).

The legal heirs of the deceased were also entitled to a compensation of Rs.50 lakhs under the
“Corona Warriors Compensation Scheme” which the Gujarat Govt. had launched for
compensating the legal heirs of doctors who were serving as frontline warriors and lost their
lives to COVID-19.

The deceased never made a will for the disposition of his property.

After the death of the deceased, his wife, Shalin,i along with their daughter Falgun,i applied for a
Legal Heir Certificate for

●​ Pension
●​ Compensation under the “Corona Warriors Compensation Scheme”
●​ Ownership Rights over the 3bhk flat
●​ Benefits under the insurance policy
To their shock, someone else named Tara (Aged 60 years), a resident of Surat, also filed a case as
a legally married wife along with her son Tanmay (Aged 35) as the legal heir of the deceased.

They also learnt that a petition was filed by the deceased for divorce with Tara in the Year 1984
in the District of Surat but the suit was dismissed in 1985 as none of the parties appeared for
further hearings after the first hearing, as Aakash moved to Ahmedabad in 1985.

After that, Shalini(50) and Falguni(24) filed a case in the district court of Ahmedabad.

LEGAL BATTLE FOR INHERITANCE IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF AHMEDABAD

The district court decided the suit in favor of Tara

In the court, Tara claimed that she got married to the deceased on 25th February 1978 in a temple
in Surat and that she gave birth to the deceased’s son named Tanmay in 1980, and that they
mutually decided to get separated in the year 1983. However, she was unable to produce any
proof of her marriage with the deceased and the relatives of the deceased also denied the
solemnization of marriage between Tara and the deceased but admitted that them having
cohabited for some time and had begetting a male child during that time.

Shalini asserted her right as the lawful wife of the deceased on the ground that no marriage had
taken place between Tara and the deceased. And that she had lived with the deceased for 30
years as his wife, and to the world she was the wife of the deceased. Also, she had discharged all
the duties of a wife towards him and had partaken in all of his good and bad times. They had
purchased the flat together as husband and wife, the substantial share of the purchase money of
which was paid by Shalini. Further, she also claimed that she has been mentioned as the nominee
in his service book in the capacity of his wife, along with their daughter Falguni, for receiving
the death benefits of the deceased. And that her name was mentioned as the wife of the deceased
in all his identity proofs and official documents. The relationship of her deceased husband with
Tara was never within her knowledge until they applied for the legal heir certificate.

However, the court passed the decree in favor of Tara and her son Tanmay as the legal heir of the
deceased according to the la,w and also recognized Falguni as the legitimate child and legal heir
of the deceased under section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court based its decision on the
fact that the divorce petition that was admitted in the District Court of Surat shall be deemed to
be conclusive proof of a valid marriage between the deceased and Tara, although she was unable
to prove whether the marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu rituals. And since they
were not legally divorced and Tara remained unmarried till the time of the death of the deceased,
she shall be deemed to be the legally wedded wife, and the second marriage with Shalini was
void under section 5(1) as it amounted to bigamy.

Though in its judgment the court did take note of the fact that Tara and the deceased had not in
touch ever since they separated in 1983 and that she did not protest the marriage of the deceased
to another woman despite having knowledge of it. The court also stated that the fact that Shalini
was unaware of the relationship between Tara and the deceased and the divorce proceedings
between them was proved.

The court, by its decree, ordered that:

-Tara, Tanmay, and Falguni shall each get 1/3rd of the compensation under the Corona Warriors
scheme, and Tara Shalini will not be eligible to get any compensation under the scheme since she
is not the legally wedded wife.

-Tara, Tanmay, and Falguni shall each get 1/3rd of the compensation under the insurance scheme.

-Tara shall get the pension and other death benefits.

- The property will be apportioned by metes and bounds, and Tara, Tanmay, and Falguni shall
each be entitled to 1/3rd of Akash’s share in the property.

Shalini and Falguni can either pay the respective shares of Tara and Tanmay within 2 years or
else vacate the property, and it shall be divided by metes and bounds method.

APPEAL

Shalini, along with Falgun, preferred an Appeal to the High Court of Gujarat against the decree
of the District Court of Ahmedabad on the following grounds:

-Declaration of Tara and her son Tanmay as legal heirs of the deceased and refusal to recognize
Shalini’s right to the property of the deceased by formalistic application of law amounted to
grave miscarriage of justice as it was not only contrary to the intention of the deceased but also
was inconsistent with principles fair play, equity, and good conscience.

- The devolution of the share of the deceased in the flat, which Shalini and the deceased owned
as co-owners on Tara and Tanmay, was also unjustified, not only because Tara had no
contribution in it whatsoever, but also because Shalini had contributed a substantial portion of
the purchase money of the flat.

- And that, since Falguni was mentioned as the only nominee in the insurance policy, entitling
Tara and Tanmay to receive compensation under the insurance scheme, was also contrary to the
intention of the deceased and thus improper.
Issues- (Each Team member shall discuss 2 issues in their memorandum for each side)

1.​ Whether the case is appealable in the High Court?

2.​ Whether the filing of the case by Akash is prima facie evidence of a marriage between
Tara and Akash?
3.​ Should the intent of parties upon entering a contract for a 3BHK property as a married
couple be prioritized over the regulations outlined in the Hindu Succession Act?
4.​ Whether the court was correct is assessing that Shailini is not the legally wedded wife
and shall not get the pension for the deceased?
5.​ Can Shalini be excluded from inheritance even after making substantial contribution to
the Property?
6.​ Can Shalini also claim Compensation under the Corona Warrior scheme?