In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the suit for partition of Late Smt. Kaushalya Srivastava’s properties. This case sheds light on the complexities of property disputes and the intricate legal processes involved. Stay tuned to learn more about the implications of this decision and the key factors considered by the court.
Facts
- Late Shri Dewan Sarup Lal executed a registered Gift Deed transferring 12,400 sq. yards of the suit property Ajanta Cinema Complex.
- Late Smt. Kaushalya Srivastava’s exclusive ownership of the suit property at serial No 1.
- Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 jointly owned the suit property mentioned at serial No 2 with their parents.
- False claim by the plaintiff regarding Late Shri Kishan Gopal’s intestacy, countered by registered Wills dated 18.01.2002 and 02.02.2002.
- Medical conditions suffered by Late Smt. Kaushalya Srivastava impacting both physical and mental health.
- Defendant Nos. 1 to 3’s assertion of inheriting the estate through the Wills and rejecting plaintiff’s claims.
- Acknowledged Wills divided and accepted by parties involved.
- Allegations of plaintiff’s mala fide intentions refuted by defendants.
- Details of partnership firm ‘Ambica & Co.’ and assets ownership explained.
- Disputes regarding the alleged Will of Late Smt. Kaushalya Srivastava’s free will and equitable distribution.
- Medical history and treatments undergone by Late Smt. Kaushalya Srivastava provided by witnesses.
- Challenges to the genuineness of the alleged Will and contradictory statements made by the plaintiff.
- Parties’ physical and mental states during key events highlighted.
- Institution of the Suit for Partition deemed meritless and sought for dismissal.
- Family history, property acquisitions, and subsequent partitions clarified.
- Circumstances surrounding the alleged Will’s execution and custody of Late Smt. Kaushalya Srivastava.
Arguments
- The Plaintiff claims to have inherited a share in the property of Late Smt. Kaushalya Srivastava despite never raising such demands before.
- The Plaintiff alleges that the Will dated 2 February, 2002, is forged and fabricated as Late Smt. Kaushalya Srivastava was not in a sound state of mind at the time of execution.
- Defendants assert that both parents, Late Smt. Kaushalya Srivastava and Late Shri Kishan Gopal, registered their Wills on the same date, bequeathing their interests in a similar manner.
- Plaintiff questions the exclusion of daughters from the Will, casting doubt on its genuineness.
- Allegations of mutation being illegal if done in favor of Defendants 1 to 3 are raised by the Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff objects to the non-examination of the second attesting witness by the Defendants.
- Circumstantial evidence surrounding the alleged Will is deemed suspicious and inequitable by the Plaintiff.
- The Plaintiff is accused of attempting to usurp the suit properties, depriving the Defendants of their legitimate claims.
- The testimony of DW1 has been misinterpreted as there was no public dealing on that day, not that the office was closed.
- Registration of the Will creates a presumption of validity, as per the case of Prem Singh & Ors. vs. Birbal & Ors. , 2006 (5) SCC 353.
- The Will was proved by both DW5 Shri Arun Srivastava and an official from the office of Sub-Registrar.
- Argument by the plaintiff that the office was closed on Saturdays is not valid for the registration of the Wills.
Analysis
- Late Smt. Kaushalya Srivastava remained conscious and oriented from 2001 to 2003.
- Defendant witnesses, including doctors, testified to her sound mental and physical health during various occasions.
- Several witnesses attested to her attendance at family events and weddings, showcasing her active participation.
- Witnesses noted her conscious decision-making abilities.
- Medical professionals provided insights into her health conditions, treatments, and improvements over time.
- Testimony surrounded the execution of her Will, attestation by witnesses, and registration procedures on a specific day.
- Challenges to the Will were based on her alleged mental state, with defendants presenting evidence of her capacity to understand and decide.
- Exclusion of daughters in the Will was explained, supported by witness accounts.
- The legal aspects related to the registration and execution of the Will were thoroughly examined and settled in favor of the defendants.
- Mutation of properties in favor of the sons was discussed as indicative of ownership and rights as per the Will.
- Section 63 (a) & (b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 outlines the requirements for executing a valid Will.
- The testator must sign the Will to indicate their intention for it to be considered a valid document.
- Section 63(c) of the Act mandates that a Will must be attested by two or more witnesses who have seen the testator sign the Will.
- Exclusion or reduced share of natural heirs in a Will alone is not suspicious.
- Old age and proximity of death to Will execution are considered suspicious circumstances.
- The purpose of a Will is to change the succession pattern, potentially reducing or depriving natural heirs.
- Executing a Will is unnecessary if the intention is for property to pass to natural heirs.
- The burden is on the proponent of the Will to dispel all suspicious circumstances.
- Suspicion in this context refers to doubt, conjecture, or mistrust.
- Late Smt. Kaushalya Srivastava executed a Will in favor of her three sons, implying a 1/5 share for each in the Ajanta Cinema Complex property.
Decision
- The suit for Partition of the properties of Late Smt. Kaushalya Srivastava has been dismissed.
- The plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit property.
- Issue No.2 has been decided accordingly.
Case Title: ASHA SRIVASTAVA Vs. ARUN SRIVASTAVA & ORS. (2024:DHC:4730)
Case Number: CS(OS)-270/2016
