Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Savitri Bai and Another – Appellants
Versus
Savitri Bai – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9035 of 2013, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 33563 of 2011
Decided On : 29-02-2024
Agreement to Sell – Registered Sale Deed – High Court declared that plaintiff was owner of suit house property under registered Sale Deed while declaring Will executed in favour of second defendant, null and void – High Court glossed over Will, entertaining doubt as to its genuineness, only on the ground that it was not produced earlier and first defendant had affixed her signature in Sale Deed – High Court failed to appreciate independent evidence adduced to prove Will – Depositions of attestors of Will also remained unshaken and clearly evidenced that same was signed by late testator in their presence and they, in turn, affixed their own signatures in his presence – Once such evidence was adduced in terms of Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872, and mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 63 of Succession Act, 1925, were duly satisfied, Will stood proved in eye of law – As Will was duly proved to be genuine, participation of first defendant in execution of Sale Deed thereafter paled into insignificance – Owner of property under Will was second defendant and he was neither a party to sale deed nor did his mother affix her signature therein in capacity of being his guardian – In consequence, title to property belonging to second defendant did not pass under sale deed even though his mother was a signatory thereto in her own individual capacity – Verdicts of Trial Court and First Appellate Court holding so were perfectly valid and justified and High Court erred in overturning the same by applying its own notions and reversing their findings of fact and law – Judgment of High Court set aside and Judgments of Additional Civil Judge and Additional District Judge restored. (Paras 14, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Civil Suit No. 22A/80 was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge, Class-1, Mudwara Katni, vide Judgment dated 21.12.1992. Same stood confirmed in appeal by First Additional District Judge, Mudwara Katni, when Civil Appeal No. 1A/1993 filed by plaintiff was dismissed on 14.03.1997. However, Second Appeal No. 395 of 1997 filed by said plaintiff was allowed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on 28.07.2011. Thereby, High Court declared that plaintiff was the owner of the suit house property under registered Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 and decreed its possession in her favour. Further, High Court declared the Will dated 23.03.1977 executed in favour of second defendant, null and void. Aggrieved thereby, defendants in suit filed this appeal.
Findings of Court:
Civil appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside Judgment dated 28.07.2011 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 395 of 1997 and restoring the judgments of Additional Civil Judge, Class-1, Mudwara Katni, and First Additional District Judge, Mudwara Katni, in Civil Suit No. 22A/80 and Civil Appeal No. 1A/1993 respectively.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. Civil Suit No. 22A/80 was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Class-1, Mudwara Katni, vide judgment dated 21.12.1992. The same stood confirmed in appeal by the learned First Additional District Judge, Mudwara Katni, when Civil Appeal No. 1A/1993 filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on 14.03.1997. However, Second Appeal No. 395 of 1997 filed by the said plaintiff was allowed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on 28.07.2011. Thereby, the High Court declared that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit house property under the registered Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 and decreed its possession in her favour. Further, the High Court declared the Will dated 23.03.1977 executed in favour of Meghraj, the second defendant, null and void. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants in the suit filed this appeal.
2. By order dated 28.11.2011, this Court directed both parties to maintain status quo prevailing as on that date. On 30.09.2013, the interim order was directed to continue till the final disposal of the appeal.
3. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit.
4. Late Babulal Kahar had two wives. Savitri Bai, the first defendant, was born to him through his first wife. Suhadra Bai, the second wife, gave birth to four sons, viz. Madanlal, Ratanlal, Ramesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar and two daughters, Asha Bai and Baby. Babulal died on 06.02.1978. Suhadra Bai and her progeny were initially arrayed as respondents in this appeal but their names were deleted thereafter. They were not made parties to the suit or the first appeal.
5. The case of Savitri Bai, the plaintiff, was that she purchased the suit property situated in Ishwaripura Ward, Katni, under registered Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 from Suhadra Bai, the widow of Babulal; Madanlal, Ratanlal, Ramesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Asha Bai and Baby, the children of Babulal and Suhadra Bai; and Savitri Bai, the first defendant, being Babulal’s daughter through his first wife. The plaintiff claimed that she was delivered possession of the suit property after execution of the sale deed but the first defendant dispossessed her on 25.01.1979 and took forcible possession thereof. She further claimed that the first defendant failed to handover vacant possession despite receiving notices dated 25.07.1979 and 14.09.1979. She then filed the subject suit for possession of the suit property. After the first defendant filed her written statement, the plaintiff amended her suit prayer and also sought a declaration that the Will Deed dated 23.03.1977 executed by Babulal in favour of Meghraj, the son of the first defendant, shown as the second defendant in the suit, was illegal and fabricated.
6. In her written statement, the first defendant claimed that she neither sold the suit property to the plaintiff nor did she deliver possession thereof to her. According to her, she had been living at Damoh with her family but, after her husband passed away on 09.05.1976, her father brought her and her children to Katni and allowed her to live in the suit property. Thereafter, her father executed a Will, bequeathing the suit property to Meghraj, his grandson, i.e. the second defendant. She asserted that Suhadra Bai, Madanlal, Ratanlal, etc. had sold some of the properties that fell to their share in favour of their tenants and she was told that, as she too was the daughter of Babulal, her signature was also necessary. She stated that, as she was not educated and had faith in them, she signed sale deeds again and again. She, however, asserted that she never received any consideration. After receiving the plaintiff’s notices, she claimed that she clarified that she had not sold the suit property and was assured by the plaintiff’s husband that he would take back the consideration from the others and leave her property.
7. The following issues, verbatim, were framed for trial:
Agreement to Sell – A person who is not owner of property, cannot pass title of property to another person even by executing a registered Sale Deed.
Suit for possession and mesne profit – No new plea can be taken by defendants in appeal before Supreme Court.
The validity of a Will must be proven with clear evidence, including proper attestation and absence of suspicious circumstances; failure to do so results in dismissal of claims.
Civil Suit - Deed of partition – Share - Rule 18 of Order 6 provides that if an Order for leave to amend is obtained and if a party does not amend within time limited for that purpose by the order or....
The validity of a will is undermined when it is executed under suspicious circumstances, necessitating the propounder to dispel these doubts for the document to be accepted legally.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
