Delve into the legal intricacies of a recent judgment where the court scrutinized issues surrounding ownership rights and the validity of a Will deed. The court’s detailed legal analysis sheds light on key aspects of property law and succession rights, providing valuable insight into how such disputes are resolved within the legal framework.
Facts
- Plaintiff filed Second Appeal No. 395 of 1997 and High Court ruled in her favor on 28.07.2011.
- Civil Suit No 22A/80 was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Mudwara Katni on 21.12.1992.
- High Court declared the Will dated 23.03.1977 in favor of the second defendant as null and void.
- Trial Court dismissed the suit due to the invalidity of the sale deed in the absence of Meghraj, the legatee under the Will.
- Plaintiff was declared as the owner of the suit house property under the registered Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 by the High Court.
- Will’s suspicious nature was pointed out by the High Court as it was only mentioned in the first defendant’s written statement on 14.11.1980.
- High Court disbelieved the Will on the grounds of skepticism regarding first defendant’s compliance without question.
- First Additional District Judge upheld Trial Court’s findings.
- Civil Appeal No 1A/1993 filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on 14.03.1997.
- Late Babulal executed a Will deed of the disputed house in 1977 in favor of Meghraj, the son of the defendant.
- The plaintiff’s suit for possession of the suit property was based on purchasing it from the sons of Babulal.
- The plaintiff claimed that she was dispossessed by the first defendant after purchasing the property and receiving assurances regarding her property.
- Various issues were raised during trial regarding possession, sale deeds, and Will deed executed by Babulal.
- Contradictions were found in the plaintiff’s stand on taking possession of the property and her pleadings.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the first defendant on key issues and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
Also Read: Analysis of Curative Jurisdiction in Legal Dispute
Issue
- Plaintiff’s entitlement to vacant possession of the house and compensation at Rs. 1 per day
- Issue of proper valuation of the suit
- Question regarding sufficient payment of court fees
Also Read: Contractual Interpretation in Real Estate Dispute
Analysis
- Several sale deeds were executed in favor of the plaintiff, establishing ownership.
- The Will was proved in accordance with the Evidence Act and Indian Succession Act.
- High Court did not adequately consider evidence from the scribe and attestors of the Will.
- The first defendant’s lack of conscious knowledge regarding the Will was justified.
- Independent evidence was presented to prove the genuineness of the Will.
- The Will detailed the property bequeathed to the second defendant, Meghraj.
- The first defendant’s participation in the Sale Deed did not impact the validity of the Will.
- The High Court’s conclusion favored the plaintiff as the rightful owner of the suit property.
- Title to the property belonging to Meghraj did not pass under the sale deed, even though his mother was a signatory.
- Verdicts of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were valid in holding that the property did not pass under the sale deed.
- The High Court erred in overturning the lower courts’ findings of fact and law and applying its own notions.
Also Read: Non-compliance with requirements of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Decision
- The civil appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No 395 of 1997.
- The judgments of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Class-1, Mudwara Katni, and the learned First Additional District Judge, Mudwara Katni, in Civil Suit No 22A/80 and Civil Appeal No 1A/1993 respectively are restored.
- Parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.
Case Title: SAVITRI BAI Vs. SAVITRI BAI (2024 INSC 152)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009035-009035 / 2013
