Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Amritlal Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Vishnukant and ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No. 110 of 2008
Decided On : 01-07-2022
Will - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Section 96 - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Section 96] - The court discussed the validity of the Will executed by the deceased and its impact on the inheritance rights of the parties. The court found that the Will was not proved in accordance with the law and therefore, the rights of the parties were governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court held that the plaintiff and defendants were entitled to equal shares in the properties mentioned in the schedules A, B, and C.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition, declaration, and injunction with regard to the suit property. The defendants claimed ownership based on a Will executed by the deceased. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding in favor of the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will was not proved in accordance with the law and therefore, the rights of the parties were governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court held that the plaintiff and defendants were entitled to equal shares in the properties mentioned in the schedules A, B, and C.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the Will, inheritance rights of the parties, and the entitlement to shares in the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Will was not proved in accordance with the law and therefore, the rights of the parties were governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court further held that the plaintiff and defendants were entitled to equal shares in the properties mentioned in the schedules A, B, and C.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court were set aside. The plaintiff and defendants were entitled to equal shares in the properties mentioned in the schedules A, B, and C.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2008 passed by First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 52-A/2005 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff Amritlal and defendant No.1 Vishnukant are the sons of late Vyashnarayan. Defendant No.2 Shankaralal was also son of Vyashnarayan, subsequently, he was adopted by Ramkrishna, brother of Vyashnarayan. Defendant No. 4 Rajkumari Bai was the wife of defendant No.1. The property described in Schedule A, B and C is the suit property. The property described in Schedule-B is situated at village Baloda, Tahsil Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, measuring 14 acres of lands belonging to defendant's mother Smt. Rampyari Bai. After her death property described in Schedule-B has been inherited by plaintiff and defendant Vishnukant and they are entitled for ½ of the shares in the property. It has been contended that the property described in Schedule-C, land bearing khasra No. 67/1/31/B area 25 decimal, name of defendant No.1 has been recorded in the revenue record and land bearing khasra No. 67/2/28/2 area 25 dismissal was recorded in the name of defendant No.4. These two lands measuring 50 dismissal have been purchased by mother of plaintiff late Rampyari Bai from her own sources. It has been contended that after death of Rampyari Bai, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are entitled to get ½ of the shares in the suit house and the plot. It has been further contended that Rajkumar (defendant No. 4) has no right over the suit property as the plaintiff mother Rampyari Bai has purchased the property from her own sources. There was dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the plaintiff has filed the Civil Suit No. 9-A/97 which was decided by 6th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in favour of plaintiff on 11 March 1998. It has also been contended that this judgment and decree was assailed by the defendant before the High Court but the plaintiff has not received any notice about filing of the suit, therefore, it is presumed that no appeal has been filed. After death of Rampyari, the plaintiff has made an attempt for partition of the suit property but in vain which has necessitated the plaintiff to file suit for partition, declaration and injunction with regard to suit property mentioned in schedule A,B and C. It has also been prayed that though defendant No. 2 Shankarlal is adopted son of Ramkrishna, still the Court granted the share after decreeing the suit for partition in favour of defendant No.2 also then he has no objection with regard to grant of share to defendant No.2.
3. The defendant No.1 and defendant No. 4 have filed the joint written statement admitting the relationship between the parties but denying the allegation made in the plaint. It has been contended that as per the partition taken place between the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and mother Rampyari Bai on 31.10.1983, the property described in Schedule-A and B of the plaint house and land measuring 14 acres has been given to Ram Kumar Bai, as such she was sole owner of the property. It has been further contended that Rampyari Bai has executed a Will on 15.12.1983 in her lifetime in favour of defendant No.1 and as per Will the defendant No.1 has taken possession, title over the suit property. It has also been contended that Civil Suit No. 9-A97 has filed on 30.04.1984 before the Court of 6th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur which was decided on 11-9-1998. The plaintiff himself admitted about the execution of Will by Rampyari Bai on 15.12.1983 still he has claimed ½ of the share which is not correct. It has been further contended that the property has been given to the Ram Kumar Bai as per family partition but Ram Kumar Bai has executed the Will in favour of defendant No.1
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of a Will must be proved in accordance with the law, and in its absence, the rights of the parties are governed by the applicable....
Single attesting witness's testimony proving both attestations suffices for Will proof under Sections 63(c), Succession Act and 68, Evidence Act.
(1) Proof of execution of Will – If one attesting witness can prove execution of Will, examination of other attesting witness can be dispensed with.(2) Where Will is a registered document, there is p....
The father of the coparceners had no right to bequeath ancestral property via Will. Wills are invalid unless proven in accordance with statutory requirements.
The execution of a will must strictly adhere to statutory requirements, including valid attestation by witnesses, and mere registration does not suffice to validate a will in the presence of suspicio....
The determination of property ownership validity relies on substantial proof of wills and the classification of property as joint or self-acquired.
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
