In a significant legal battle over land ownership, the Supreme Court delivered a crucial judgement regarding the validity of a will. The case involved a dispute between the parties regarding the rightful ownership and possession of the land. The Court’s decision set aside the invalid will and confirmed the rights of the deserving party in the case.
Facts
- Beli Ram transferred the land in suit to defendants Saroj Kumari, Pankaj Kumar, and Pawan Kumar.
- Plaintiff Tota Ram claimed ownership and possession of the land, stating he had cultivated it for over three decades and cared for Beli Ram.
- After Beli Ram’s death, Tota Ram filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction against the defendants interfering with his possession.
- A registered Will in 1988 bequeathed the land to Tota Ram out of love and affection.
- The trial court, in 2004, dismissed the suit, citing the plaintiff’s possession at that time.
- Upon interference by the defendants, Tota Ram discovered Vikram Singh had his name mutated in the revenue records based on another Will from 1994.
- Tota Ram appealed to the District Judge, Hamirpur, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- The Will dated 12.12.1988 was declared valid and genuine, entitling the plaintiff to declaration of possession of the land in question.
- The High Court held that purchasers from defendant no.1 were entitled to benefit from Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, saving the transactions in their favor.
- The Will dated 16.05.1994 in favor of defendant no.1 was found to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances and not genuine.
- Mutation Entry No.201 was set aside but saved with respect to transfers made in favor of defendants 2, 4, and 5.
- The District Judge decreed the suit against defendants 1, 2, 4, and 5, allowing them to retain the land under their sale deeds while the remaining land under the Will was declared in the ownership of the plaintiff, Tota Ram.
- The High Court confirmed the validity of the Will dated 12.12.1988.
- The legal heirs of Tota Ram filed Civil Appeal No.8187 of 2023 challenging the High Court’s judgment on saving transactions in favor of defendants 2, 4, and 5.
- A separate Civil Appeal No.8188 of 2023 was filed by defendant no.1, Vikram Singh, contesting the declaration of his Will dated 16.05.1994 as invalid and shrouded with suspicion.
- The Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC was filed by the defendants, registering as RSA No.392 of 2005 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
- The High Court restored Mutation Entry No.207 in favor of defendant Nos.2, 4, and 5.
Also Read: Interpretation of Drawer Liability: Company vs. Authorized Signatory
Issue
- Ownership and possession of the land in dispute belonged to Beli Ram
- The issue in the present appeal pertains to the ownership and possession of the said land
Also Read: Land Dispute Case: Supreme Court Rules on Specific Performance and Compensation
Arguments
- Plaintiffs-appellants argue that the High Court made a serious error in applying Section 41 of the TP Act to defendants 2, 4, and 5.
- They point out that there was no specific pleading, issue framed, or evidence presented for such relief.
- Defendants 2, 4, and 5 did not testify in the case.
Also Read: City Manager Selection Dispute: Upholding Rules 2014 Over Executive Order
Analysis
- Defendants 1, 2, 4, and 5 did not plead that Defendant No. 1 obtained consent from the plaintiff before making transfers.
- Defendants 2, 4, and 5 did not provide evidence or plead facts regarding the consent from the plaintiff.
- The High Court deemed the Will dated 12.12.1988 as genuine and valid, while the Will dated 16.05.1994 was considered as invalid.
- As the Will was held invalid, Defendant No. 1 did not receive any right, title, or interest under it which impacts Defendants 2, 4, and 5.
- The High Court’s decision to grant relief to the purchasers (Defendants 2, 4, and 5) was deemed unwarranted and against the evidence on record.
- The proviso to section 41 of the TP Act necessitates the transferees to ensure the transferor’s authority in good faith, which was not proven by the defendants.
- The High Court’s grant of relief based on section 41 of the TP Act was considered misplaced due to lack of pleading and evidence.
- Defendants 2, 4, and 5 could not acquire better rights than Defendant No. 1 without specific pleading and evidence.
- Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act states that a transfer by an ostensible owner with the consent of the persons interested in the property shall not be voidable.
- Consent, whether express or implied, of the persons interested in the property is necessary for the transfer to be valid.
- In this case, Tota Ram, with a registered will in his favor, was definitely interested in the immovable property, emphasizing the requirement of consent from all interested parties.
- The findings on the validity of the second Will dated 16.05.1994 were deemed to be shrouded with suspicious circumstances.
- The first Appellate Court and the High Court provided well-reasoned decisions based on evidence on record.
- The appeals court is not inclined to interfere with the pure finding of fact regarding the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.
- Defendant No.1 failed to dispel the doubts and clear the clouds surrounding the Will dated 16.05.1994.
- The first Appellate Court extensively addressed this aspect, and its finding was upheld by the High Court.
Decision
- The appeal filed by the defendant no.1, Vikram Singh is liable to be dismissed.
- The judgment of the High Court extending benefit to defendant nos. 2, 4, and 5 is set aside.
- The judgment of the first Appellate Court decreeing the suit in totality is affirmed.
- Civil Appeal No. 8187 of 2023 is allowed.
- Appeal No. 8188 of 2023 is dismissed.
Case Title: DUNI CHAND Vs. VIKRAM SINGH (2024 INSC 516)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008187-008187 – 2023
