Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) And Others – Appellants
Versus
Metapalli Muthaih(D) By Lrs – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(S). 5921 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No(s). 5922 of 2015
Decided on : 21-07-2025
Property Law – Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction – Claim based on registered Will and oral Family Settlement – Distribution of properties, as per family settlement and registered Will, is almost in same proportions – Will is a registered document and there is presumption regarding genuineness thereof – Trial Court accepted execution of Will based on evidence led before it – As Will is a registered document, burden would lie on party who disputed its existence thereof, to establish that it was not executed in manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances which made the same doubtful – Legal heir of original land holder made fair distribution of his tangible assets amongst his legal heirs by executing Will and so also oral Family Settlement – Trial Court was fully justified in decreeing suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by plaintiff and granting her absolute rights over suit schedule properties – View taken by Trial Court being based on apropos appreciation of evidence and prevailing legal principles is unassailable in facts as well as in law – Impugned Judgment rendered by High Court set aside and judgment and decree rendered by Trial Court restored. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
These two appeals arise out of rival claims of legal representatives of legal heir of original land holder, over a chunk of land admeasuring 4 acres and 16 Guntas. Subject suit was filed by plaintiff specifically basing her claim on registered Will dated 24th July, 1974 and oral family settlement.
Findings of Court:
High Court, manifestly erred while interfering with well-reasoned Judgment of Trial Court and substituting its own findings by reducing share of plaintiff-Lasum Bai in suit schedule properties.
Result : Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015 allowed and Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 dismissed.
In the context of property transfer, estate planning, or executing a will, the issue of obtaining a no-objection from beneficiaries is often relevant. Generally, a no-objection from a beneficiary signifies their formal consent or approval regarding the proposed transaction or distribution of property, which can help prevent future disputes and establish clarity of intent.
Based on the provided document, the case involves a registered Will and oral family settlement concerning the distribution of property among heirs. The Court recognized the validity and genuineness of the Will, noting that it was a registered document and that there was a presumption of its authenticity (!) (!) . The evidence indicated that the testator had executed the Will with an understanding of his property distribution, and the beneficiaries, including the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, had accepted their respective shares.
In such cases, if a beneficiary has given a no-objection or has not challenged the Will or the distribution plan, it can serve as a significant factor in affirming the legitimacy of the distribution and the absence of undue influence or coercion. A no-objection can also facilitate smooth transfer or sale of the property, as it demonstrates that the beneficiary does not oppose the transaction.
However, it is important to note that the absence of a formal no-objection does not necessarily invalidate a Will or distribution, especially if the beneficiary's rights are otherwise established through legal proceedings or recognized documentation. Nonetheless, obtaining a no-objection is a prudent step to mitigate future legal challenges and to ensure that all beneficiaries are aware of and agree to the distribution or transfer.
In summary, in the context of the case and legal principles, a no-objection from a beneficiary can serve as a valuable document that affirms their consent, supports the validity of the distribution or transfer, and reduces the likelihood of future disputes. It is advisable to secure such no-objections in writing, preferably in notarized form, to strengthen the legal standing of the transaction.
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. These two appeals arise out of rival claims of the legal representatives of late Metpalli Rajanna over a chunk of land admeasuring 4 acres and 16 guntas located at village Dasnapur.
3. For the sake of convenience, the genealogical table of the parties is reproduced hereinbelow: -
4. Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are as below.
4.1. The original land holder i.e., Metpalli Ramanna died intestate prior to 1949. The total landed property owned by Metpalli Ramanna is described below: -
| Survey Nos. | Village | Description of Properties |
| 28 | Dasnapur | Ac. 12-32 Guntas Dry Land. |
| 6 | Mavala | Ac. 1-25 Guntas Wet Land. |
| 9 | Mavala | Ac. 1-13 Guntas Wet Land. |
| 1/84 | Savaragaon | Ac. 2-34 Guntas Dry Land. |
| Total | 18 acres 06 guntas |
4.2. Metpalli Rajanna, the legal heir of Ramanna married Narsamma and from their wedlock, two children, namely, Muthaiah1[Hereinafter, referred to as “defendant-Muthaiah”.] and Rajamma were born. Narsamma died during the lifetime of M. Rajanna who contracted second marriage with Lasum Bai2[Hereinafter, referred to as “plaintiff-Lasum Bai”.] who did not bear any child. M. Rajanna expired in the year 1983 and his daughter Rajamma also died intestate on which, a dispute over the right to property arose between plaintiff-Lasum Bai on the one side and defendant-Muthaiah on the other.
4.3. As per the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, M. Rajanna anticipated the disputes between her and his son from the 1st marriage i.e., defendant-Muthaiah and to avoid the same, he made an oral family arrangement distributing his properties as below: -
| Lasum Bai (2nd wife of M. Rajanna) | 1. Sy. No. 28 of Dasnapur Village- Ac. 6-16 Gts out of Ac.12-32 Gts. 2. 1/3rd portion of Sy. Nos. 6 & 9 Mavala Village, out of Ac. 2-38 Gts. 3. Cattle shed bearing Panchayat No. 3-4 situated at Savaragaon Village. |
| Muthaiah | 1. Sy. No. 28 of Dasnapur Village- Ac. 6-16 Gts out of Ac.12-32 Gts. 2. 1/3rd portion of Sy. Nos. 6 & 9 Mavala Village, out of Ac. 2-38 Gts. |
| Rajamma (widowed daughter) | 1. Sy. No. 1/84 of Savaragaon Village, Ac. 2-34 gts. 2. 1/3rd portion of Sy. Nos. 6 & 9 Mavala Village., out of Ac. 2-38 Gts. |
4.4. M. Rajanna also executed a registered Will in favour of plaintiff-Lasum Bai recognizing the share of defendant-Muthaiah in the joint family properties. The said Will was registered on 24th July, 1974.
4.5. The case set up on behalf of plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the suit was that she was granted the rights over 6 acres 16 guntas from the chunk of land in Survey No. 28 of the Village Dasnapur which was located towards the north of the undivided plot of land whereas, defendant-Muthaiah was granted 6 acres 16 guntas of land towards south of the said plot. The said plot is the bone of contention between the parties.
4.6. Admittedly, the plaintiff-Lasum Bai sold two acres of land from her purported share to one Sanjeeva Reddy vide registered sale deed dated 27th August, 1987. The said registered sale deed was never questioned before any forum and remains unchallenged. The plaintiff-Lasum Bai had entered into another agreement on 15th July, 1987, for selling her remaining 4 acres and 16 guntas land located in Survey No. 28 of the Dasnapur Village3[Hereinafter, referred to as “disputed property”.] to one Janardhan Reddy.
4.7. Aggrieved by this agreement, defendant- Muthaiah filed an injunction suit being Original Suit No. 101 of 1987 seeking an injunction against plaintiff-Lasum Bai and to restrain her from selling the properties which came to her share under the registered Will including the plot admeasuring 4 acres 16 guntas. Vide judgment and decree dated 6th July, 1990, the said injunction suit was decreed in favour of defendant-Muthaiah. However, it was clearly recorded in the judgment of the District Munsif, Adilabad that the title of pla
Where Will is a registered document there is presumption regarding genuineness thereof.
Registered wills are presumed valid unless substantial evidence proves otherwise; the burden lies on contesting parties to show defects in execution or suspicious circumstances.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the remaining land after a sale of joint family property and the probative value of registered documents in determi....
The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed for family and legal necessity by a joint family member is binding, barring challenge by family members after significant delay without sufficient cause....
A Karta under Mitakshara law cannot alienate joint family property via a Will; it is a family arrangement. Possession under a void document can lead to adverse possession if maintained for the requis....
The burden of proof rests on the party asserting the validity of a Will, which must be established free from suspicious circumstances.
(1) Partition Suit – A Person who does not have a share in such property cannot be a party to a suit for partition.(2) Nomenclature of document, whether it was a sale deed or family settlement deed o....
A Will concerning ancestral property is invalid if the testator lacks the authority to bequeath the property and fails to prove prior partition among heirs.
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
