Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 382
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Shyama Devi - Appellant
Versus
Manju Shukla And Others - Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 700/2012
Decided On : 08-04-2020
R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. and Mamoon Khalid, for the Appellant; Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv., Deepak Sharma, Rohan Tibrewal and Ritwick Dave, for the Respondents
A will executed by a coparcener under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is valid and confers absolute ownership upon the beneficiary, provided it is not procured by undue influence or fraud.
Headnote:
WILL - VALIDITY - UNDUE INFLUENCE - CONSTRUCTION - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 6 - NO SUCCESSION BY SURVIVORSHIP - WILL BY COPARCENER - VALIDITY - COURT FEE - ASSESSMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming ownership over all the properties falling in the share of her deceased husband, Jamuna Prasad, on the strength of a registered will executed in her favour. The respondent, Jamuna Prasad's son, contested the suit, alleging that the will was forged and executed under undue influence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the will was invalid due to contradictions in the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses, absence of description of the property in the will, and the fact that the respondent had already been given a share in the properties in a partition suit. The appellant challenged this decision in the first appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the will executed by Jamuna Prasad in favour of the appellant was valid and genuine? 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to a declaration of ownership over the properties falling in the share of Jamuna Prasad? 3. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the will was valid and genuine, rejecting the respondent's allegations of forgery and undue influence. It relied on the presumption of genuineness attached to a registered will, the attestation of the will by two witnesses, and the absence of any specific evidence of undue influence. 2. The court held that the appellant was entitled to a declaration of ownership over the properties falling in the share of Jamuna Prasad, as the will conferred absolute ownership upon her. It rejected the respondent's contention that the will was invalid due to the absence of a description of the specific properties, holding that the law does not require such a description. 3. The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit and set aside the impugned judgment and decree.
Final Decision: The first appeal was allowed, the trial court's judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit was decreed in favour of the appellant, subject to the assessment of court fee based on the valuation of the properties falling in the share of Jamuna Prasad.
JUDGMENT
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This first appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7.9.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby, the civil suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for brevity-`the appellant') against the respondents-defendants (for brevity-`the respondents') for declaration and permanent injunction, has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Dhanpat Rai filed a suit no. 21/73 for partition of ancestral properties belonging to late Purindar Ram; the propositus. Late Jamuna Prasad, husband of the appellant and father of the respondents no. 1 to 6, was one of the defendants in the suit. Preliminary decree was passed on 24.1.1975. In the first appeal filed by Jamuna Prasad along with his brother Ganga Prasad against the preliminary decree, a compromise dated 5.5.1980 was arrived at between the parties agreeing therein that each branch comprising of descendants of three sons of late Pd. Purindar Ram shall be entitled for 1/3rd share each. In the first appeal, the application filed by the respondent no. 1 herein, Smt. Manju Shukla, seeking her impleadment as one of the respondents raising objection against the compromise, was rejected. The first appeal was disposed of by this Court vide its judgment dated 1.9.1986 in terms of compromise dated 5.5.1980. Shri Jamuna Prasad died on 7.1.1987 and his legal representatives were brought on record. During the course of preparation of final decree, the respondent no. 1 moved an application seeking a direction for the Commissioner to divide her 1/7th share out of the 1/3rd share of late Ganga Prasad and late Jamuna Prasad which came to be allowed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 13.7.1990 rejecting the plea of present appellant to have acquired ownership over all the properties left behind by Jamuna Prasad on the strength of will in her favour. This Court, vide its order dated 28.5.1991, set aside the order dated 13.7.1990 in the revision petitions filed there against. The Hon'ble Apex Court, vide its order dated 3.3.1992, while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 against the order dated 28.05.1991, granted the appellant i.e. Smt. Shyama Devi liberty to file a separate suit claiming title in the property in dispute on the basis of the will. Thereafter, the present suit was filed with the averments that late Jamuna Prasad had executed a registered will dated 7.3.1986 in her favour whereby she was given absolute ownership over his entire properties. Thus, it was prayed that the appellant be declared to be sole successor and owner of all the properties falling in share of late Jamuna Prasad as described in Schedule 'Ka' alongwith the decree of permanent injunction.
3. The respondent no. 1 in her written statement submitted that the suit filed by Dhanpat Rai was for the division of self acquired property and not for ancestral property. It was denied that late Jamuna Prasad had ever executed any will dated 7.3.1986; rather, his signature on it was claimed to be forged. It was averred that at that time he was seriously ill and was not in a fit mental state to execute the will which was executed under the undue influence of respondent no. 2 Shri Deepak Tiwari and his wife Smt. Shashi Tiwari. It was stated that final decree in the suit no. 21/73 with regard to her 1/7th share having already been passed and she being in possession of property falling in her share as its absolute owner, the suit was not maintainable. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit filed by the appellant be dismissed.
4. The respondent no. 3 in his written statement admitted division of properties amongst three branches as per the compromise between the parties during pendency of the first appeal; but, denied execution of any will in favour of the appellant by late Jamuna Prasad. The respondents no. 2 to 6 in their joint written statement admitted the averments made by the
