1. Dispute over land ownership involving competing Wills — suit for declaration and permanent injunction — challenge to revenue mutations. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 584
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
Duni Chand – Appellant
Versus
Vikram Singh And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8187 of 2023
With
Duni Chand – Appellant
Versus
DUNI CHAND AND OTHERS – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8188 of 2023
Decided on : 10-07-2024
Advocates appeared:
For Appellant(s) Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, Sr. Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jad, Adv. Dr. Brij Bhushan K Jauhari, Adv. Mr. Nirdosh Bhola Vishen, Adv. Mr. O.p.singh, Adv. Ms. Purnima Jauhari, AOR Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Sayma Feroz, Adv. Mr. Manvendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR
For Appellant(s) Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, Sr. Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jad, Adv. Dr. Brij Bhushan K Jauhari, Adv. Mr. Nirdosh Bhola Vishen, Adv. Mr. O.p.singh, Adv. Ms. Purnima Jauhari, AOR Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Sayma Feroz, Adv. Mr. Manvendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Transfer by ostensible owner – Transferees has to take reasonable care in ascertaining that transferor had power to make transfer and that they had acted in good faith – This would require specific pleading and evidence by transferees.
Headnote:
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 41, Proviso – Transfer by ostensible owner – Transferees has to take reasonable care in ascertaining that transferor had power to make transfer and that they had acted in good faith – This would require specific pleading and evidence by transferees – Purchasers from defendant no. 1, neither pleaded such facts nor entered witness box to prove such facts as required under proviso – Relief granted by High Court relying upon Section 41 of the TP Act was completely unwarranted, misplaced and against pleading and evidence on record – Once Will itself was held to be invalid, no right accrued in favour of defendant no. 1 – Findings recorded by first Appellate Court and High Court on validity of second Will being shrouded with suspicious circumstances, is well reasoned and based on evidence on record – Defendant no.1 had completely failed to dispel and clear clouds surrounding Will – Same being a pure finding of fact, Court not inclined to interfere with same – Judgment of High Court to extent it extends benefit to purchasers, set aside and that of first Appellate Court decreeing suit in totality affirmed. (Paras 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Both appeals assail correctness of Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2017 passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereby the RSA No.392 of 2005 titled Vikram Singh and others Vs. Tota Ram (since deceased) through LRs was partly allowed and judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court was partly upheld and partly set aside.
Findings of Court:
Appeal No.8187 of 2023 is allowed. Judgment of the High Court to the extent it extends benefit to the defendant nos.2, 4 and 5 is set aside and that of the first Appellate Court decreeing suit in totality is affirmed. The Appeal No.8188 of 2023 is, hereby, dismissed.
Result : Appeals partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of competing Wills — applicability of Section 41, Transfer of Property Act to protect bona fide purchasers from an ostensible owner. (Para 2 , 11 )
3. Protection under Section 41, TP Act requires proof of consent from interested parties and reasonable care and good faith by the transferee. (Para 13 , 14 )
4. Transferees cannot invoke Section 41, TP Act without specific pleadings and evidence regarding the interested party's consent and the transferee's good faith. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed to set aside protection of purchasers; appeal dismissed regarding the validity of the second Will. (Para 16 )
6. What are the essential requirements for a transferee to claim protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act?
The transfer must be made by an ostensible owner with the express or implied consent of the persons interested in the property. Additionally, the transferee must have acted in good faith after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had the power to make the transfer. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. How does the invalidity of a Will affect subsequent transfers of property by the named beneficiary?
If a Will is held to be invalid, the beneficiary acquires no right, title, or interest in the property. Consequently, any subsequent purchasers from that beneficiary cannot acquire a better right, title, or interest than that held by the vendor. (Para 14 )
8. When will a court refuse to interfere with findings regarding the validity of a Will?
A court will not interfere with findings on the validity of a Will if the lower courts have provided well-reasoned conclusions based on evidence regarding suspicious circumstances, as such determinations are considered pure findings of fact. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Nath, J.
Both the above appeals assail the correctness of the judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereby the RSA No.392 of 2005 titled Vikram Singh and others Vs. Tota Ram (since deceased) through LRs was partly allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court was partly upheld and partly set aside.
2. Relevant facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as under:
(a). Beli Ram was the owner in possession of the land in dispute. Tota Ram, plaintiff is the nephew of Beli Ram, being his brother's son. According to the plaintiff, he had been cultivating the land in question for more than three decades and had also been taking care of Beli Ram. In 1988, out of natural love and affection, Beli Ram executed a registered Will dated 12.12.1988 bequeathing the suit land in favour of the plaintiff Tota Ram. Beli Ram died on 11.07.1994. As the plaintiff had continued in possession from the time when Beli Ram was alive, he remained in possession even after death of Beli Ram. However, as the defendant started interfering with the possession of the suit land, the plaintiff made enquiry and he came to know that defendant no.1, Vikram Singh, on the basis of another Will dated 16.05.1994 had got his name mutated in the revenue records vide mutation Entry No.201. Further, Vikram Singh had transferred the land in suit in favour of defendant no.2, Smt. Saroj Kumari and also defendant nos.4 and 5, Pankaj Kumar and Pawan Kumar respectively.
(b) In view of the interference in possession, Tota Ram instituted a suit for a decree of declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction that he was the owner in possession of land in dispute and that the defendants had no right or title to it. It was further prayed that the mutation Entry No.201 dated 17.01.1996 and Entry No. 207 dated 07.06.1996 should also be declared as false, fictitious and illegal.
(c). In the plaint, Vikram Singh was impleaded as defendant no.1., Smt. Saroj Kumari as defendant no.2, Pankaj Kumar and Pawan Kumar as defendant Nos.4 and 5. Defendant no.3, Smt. Dharni Devi, being daughter of Beli Ram was also impleaded but no relief was claimed against her as she had not put up any claim with respect to the property of Beli Ram including the land in suit. According to the plaint allegations, Beli Ram had executed the Will in sound mind and good health, out of love and affection on 12.12.1988 in favour of the plaintiff, who had been taking care of Beli Ram throughout and had also been cultivating the land in suit for the last more than 30 years. It was further stated that the second Will dated 16.05.1994, set up by defendant no.1 was forged and fictitious and surrounded with suspicion, as such, it did not confer any right, title or interest upon the defendant no.1 or the vendees through him i.e. Defendant nos.2, 4 and 5.
(d). The defendants contested the suit and filed their written statements and led evidence. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 filed a separate written statement. They denied the plaint allegations and stated that the Will dated 16.05.1994 was a genuine document voluntarily executed by Beli Ram in a healthy and disposing mind and the same was duly registered. The Will dated 12.12.1988 was denied. According to them, the entries in the revenue records were made after due verification. They also claimed to be in possession of the land purchased by them. Separate written statements were filed by defendant nos.1 and 2 on same lines as of defendants 4 and 5. Dharni Devi, Defendant no.3, filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and also the Will dated 12.12.1988.
4. The Trial Court framed 12 issues which read as follows:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land as alleged?
2. Whether late Shri Beli Ram executed a valid "Will" on 12.12.1988 in favour of the plaintiff as alleged? OPP
3. Whether the mutations No.201 and 207 are wrong and
