Back
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
Geetabai Ramchandra Pawar
Versus
Rambhau Maruti Pawar & Others
Second Appeal No. 380 of 2006 & Civil Application No. 4345 of 2006
Decided on: 14-03-2014
Will - Property Dispute - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sections 59, 61, 63
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, widow of Ramchandra, filed a suit for relief of declaration and injunction claiming ancestral property. The trial court ruled in her favor, but the First Appellate Court set aside the decision, holding that the property was given to the defendants by the deceased through a Will. The appellant alleged that the deceased was not in a sound disposing state of mind and was deceived into executing the Will due to his illness.
Finding of the Court:
The First Appellate Court found in favor of the defendants, holding that the evidence given by the appellant and her witnesses was not believable. It considered various circumstances, including the registration of the Will, the absence of medical examination records, and the prior application to revenue authorities, to ascertain the intention of the deceased. The court dismissed the appeal, rejecting the appellant's claim.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the execution of the Will, the mental capacity of the deceased, and the alleged fraud and deception in obtaining the Will.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, particularly Sections 59, 61, and 63, which govern the execution of Wills, testamentary capacity, and the validity of Wills obtained by fraud or coercion. It held that the burden of proof lay with the appellant to establish the alleged fraud and the unsound disposing state of mind of the deceased.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the interim relief, if any, was vacated.
1) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.151 of 1999 which was pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge Ahmednagar. The decision given by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.44 of 1993 in favour of present appellant is set aside by the First Appellate Court and her suit is dismissed. Both sides are heard.
2) The appellant had filed suit for relief of declaration and injunction. It is her case that she is widow of one Ramchandra who died on 20-9-1991. It is her case that in the year 1966 in family partition with defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2) Ramchandra got land Gut Nos.237, 220, 219 and 160 from village Jamb and it was ancestral, joint family property of Ramchandra and defendant Nos.1 and 2.
3) It is her case that she had married with Ramchandra about 48 to 50 years prior to the date of suit. She has no issue from Ramchandra but according to her, she was cohabiting with Ramchandra till his last breath.
4) It is the case of the plaintiff that, after death of Ramchandra, she came in possession of the suit property and she started cultivating the lands. It is her case that in the last days, Ramchandra was suffering from paralysis. It is her case that Ramchandra was simpleton person. It is her case that by misusing this circumstance, defendant Nos.1 and 2 deceived Ramchandra and they obtained thumb impression of Ramchandra on Will deed dated 16-7-1991. It is her case that as Ramchandra was sick, he was not in sound disposing state of mind. It is her case that said Will is null and void and is not binding on her. It is her case that on the basis of the document of Will the defendants are obstructing her possession over the suit property. In the suit, she had prayed for relief of declaration in respect of tile over the suit property, she had prayed for declaration that the Will is null and void, and she had prayed for relief of injunction to protect her so called possession over the suit property.
5) The defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit. They contended that divorce had taken place between plaintiff and Ramchandra in the year 1976 and since then the plaintiff was living separate from Ramchandra. It is their case that, the plaintiff was living in Ahmednagar and not in the village where the lands are situated. It is their case that after taking divorce from Ramchandra, the plaintiff had married with one person by name Kisan Tapkire and so otherwise also she was not entitled to receive property of Ramchandra.
6) It is the case of the defendants that they maintained Ramchandra during his last days and they also spent for maintenance and medical treatment of Ramchandra. They contended that Ramchandra had given his share to them by making application to revenue authorities and accordingly their names came to be entered in the revenue record. It is their case that as the property was ancestral, Hindu joint family property, on the basis of application given by Ramchandra their names came to be entered in the revenue record in 1986 and since then they have been cultivating the suit lands as owners.
7) It is the case of the defendants that no partition had taken place between them and Ramchandra as contended by the plaintiff. It is their case that only by way of family arrangement the suit land was recorded in the name of Ramchandra for few years. It is their contention that one suit bearing RCS No.587/1991 was filed in respect of the suit property in which they and Ramchandra were party. It is contended that Ramchandra then executed Will deed in their favour voluntarily on 16-7-1991 and so they have become absolute owner of the suit property.
8) The other defendants also contested the suit. They supported defendant Nos.1 and 2.
9) In the trial Court, both the sides gave evidence both oral and documentary. The trial Court held that the defendants failed to prove that there was divorce between Ramchandra and the plaintiff. The trial Court held that defe
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
