SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Chh) 204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Sulaxani, D/o. Mahadeo Jaiswal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sattar Ali, S/o. Nasir & Ors. - Respondents
SA No. 474 of 2007
Decided On : 02-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari.
For the Respondents: Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Mr. Ishwari Ghritlahre, P.L.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 100 - Declaration and possession of the suit property - Legal heir and intended to transfer his movable and immovable property - Whether Will Ex. P-2 is proved in accordance with law, more particularly, law relating to under Mohammedan Law - Whether the Will Ex. P-2 is a suspicious document and first appellate Court was not justified in allowing the suit preferred by the plaintiff - Whether first appellate Court is justified in granting decree of the entire suit property in favour of plaintiff on basis of Will fact that the testator of the Will Sunni Mohammad governed by law and by virtue of Rules 117 and 118 of the Sunni Hanifi law cannot by will dispose of more than a third of the surplus of his estate after payment of funeral expenses and debts - Bequests in excess of the legal third cannot take effect, unless the heirs consent thereto after the death of the testator - Plaintiff has filed Civil Suit before Civil Judge declaration and possession mainly contending that defendants and they are defendants No. 5 & 6 are Hindus and they are governed by Hindu Law. It has been contended that the agricultural land bearing respectively is situated at Village - It has been further contended that due to old age, he was unable to look after agricultural work therefore, in the year 1989, he kept plaintiff to look after him as well as to take care of his agricultural work - Held, Case, no consent from the other residuaries in absence of sharers has been obtained, therefore, the Will has not been executed as per procedure provided under the Mahomedan Law - Similarly, the substantial question No. 1 is answered in favour of the appellant - On substantial question of law No. 3, it is quite vivid that plaintiff in his evidence has categorically admitted in his evidence that he has called the witness when all these persons were gathered then he has got the Will executed - Shows that Will has been written on the instance of plaintiff, which is sufficient to establish that the Will is not free Will and suspicious circumstances are available on record - Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 20.09.2007 passed by District Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 07A/2006 (Old Case No. 08A/2005) (Sattar Ali Vs. Jasimuddin & others) setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2005 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Baikunthpur, District-Korea (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 13A/2002 for declaration and possession of the suit property i.e. agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 685, 782 & 920 area admeasuring 0.25, 0.10 & 0.65 R.A. respectively situated at Village-Targawan, Patwari Halka No.24, Revenue Circle-Patana, District-Baikunthpur (C.G.)

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 13A/2002 which was filed for declaration and possession of the suit property.

3. The instant Second Appeal is admitted for hearing by this Court vide its order dated 11.08.2010 on following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the Will Ex. P-2 is proved in accordance with law, more particularly, law relating to Hiba under the Mohammedan Law ?

2. Whether the Will Ex. P-2 is a suspicious document and the first appellate Court was not justified in allowing the suit preferred by the plaintiff ?

4. Thereafter, on 05.07.2021, an additional issue has been framed by this Court, which reads as under:-

“Whether the first appellate Court is justified in granting decree of the entire suit property in favour of plaintiff Sattar Ali on the basis of Will dated 16-3-1992 (Ex.P-2) ignoring the fact that the testator of the Will namely, Noor Mohammad was a Sunni Mohammad governed by Hanifi law and by virtue of Rules 117 and 118 of the Sunni Hanifi law, “a Mahomedan cannot by will dispose of more than a third of the surplus of his estate after payment of funeral expenses and debts. Bequests in excess of the legal third cannot take effect, unless the heirs consent thereto after the death of the testator.”?”

5. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averment, are that the plaintiff has filed Civil Suit No. 13A/2002 before Civil Judge Class-II, Baikunthpur, District-Korea (C.G.) for declaration and possession mainly contending that defendants No.1 to 4 are Sunni Mahomedan and they are governed by Sunni Hanifi Law whereas, defendants No. 5 & 6 are Hindus and they are governed by Hindu Law. It has been contended that the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 685, 782, 920 area admeasuring 0.25, 0.10 & 0.65 R.A. respectively is situated at Village-Targawan, Patwari Halka No.24, Revenue Circle-Patana (Suit Property) belonging to Late Noor Mohammad S/o Radhan Ali. Late Noor Mohammad was residing in the house built up in the suit property and doing agricultural work. Noor Mohammad expired on 29.08.1992 and his wife expired prior to his death. He died issue-less. It has been further contended that due to old age, he was unable to look after agricultural work, therefore, in the year 1989, he kept the plaintiff to look after him as well as to take care of his agricultural work. The plaintiff was living with Late Noor Mohammad with his wisdom. The plaintiff is nephew of Late Noor Mohammad.

6. It has also been further contended that looking to the care taken by the plaintiff, in the month of March, 1990, Late Noor Mohammad shown his intention in presence of prominent persons of Village-Targawan that he intends to make the plaintiff as his legal heir and intended to transfer his movable and immovable property in the name of the plaintiff for that he is willing to execute a Will. It has been further contended that on 23.03.1990, Late Noor Mohammad has expressed before Patel & Panch of Village-Targawan, Sarpanch of Village-Kasra, the then Sarpanch and citizen that he became old and ill, the plaintiff is looking after him for the last one year, therefore, being satisfied with the care taken by the plaintiff, he is handing over his immovable property i.e. hous

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top