Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 480
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Madan Gopal - Appellant
Versus
Krishan Gopal(deceased) through his LRs Savitri Devi and Ors. - Respondents.
RSA No. 422 of 2017.
Decided on : 22-05-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. G.C.Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the
For the Respondents:Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma and Mr. Vijay K. Verma Advocates
The court upheld the validity of the Will executed by the deceased, emphasizing the necessity of specific pleading for undue influence and confirming the suit was barred by limitation.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 - Validity of Will - The court examined the execution and attestation of a Will, determining that it was valid and not shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the Will executed by the deceased in favor of the defendant. (Paras 17, 19, 20, 28, 29, 34, 38)
(B) Undue Influence - The court emphasized that allegations of undue influence must be specifically pleaded with particulars, which the plaintiffs failed to do. (Paras 24, 26)
(C) Limitation - The plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation as it was filed five years after the execution of the Will. (Paras 40, 44)
Facts of the case:
The dispute arose over the estate of a deceased individual, with the plaintiffs claiming that a Will executed in favor of the defendant was invalid due to alleged undue influence and lack of sound mind at the time of execution.
Findings of Court:
The courts below found the Will to be genuine and valid, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Will, the alleged undue influence, and the maintainability of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of proof required to invalidate the Will, and the execution was in accordance with legal requirements.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below, the appellant-plaintiff has filed the instant regular second appeal.
2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendant’.
3. The parties to the lis are closely related. The dispute between them relates to the estate of Smt. Mathi alias Darshanu wife of late Sh. Jagat Ram, who was issueless and breathed her last on 22.11.2000. Genealogy of the parties given below will clarify their relationship inter se and with the deceased owner:-
4. The plaintiff and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No.1 on the allegations that late Smt. Mathi had 1/4th undivided share in the suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 4/5, Khasra No. 88, measuring 0-7 biswas; land comprised in Khata-Khatauni No. 22/37, Khasra No. 112, measuring 1 bigha and 5 biswas; land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.27/42, measuring 36 bighas 19 biswas and the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.21/35, measuring 47 bighas 2 biswas, as shown in the jamabandi for the year 1989-90, situated at Mauza Petyog, New Shimla, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. It was averred that the mutation No.17 dated 22.09.2001 and Will dated 02.01.1998, alleged to have been executed by late Smt. Mathi, are illegal, void, inoperative and against the rights of the plaintiffs. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from transferring, alienating, encumbering or changing the nature of any portion of the land in the share of Smt. Mathi, as mentioned above, was prayed for.
5. Notice of the suit was issued to defendant No.1, who filed a detailed written statement controverting the averments made in the plaint in addition to the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit as also that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit and that they are trying to take undue advantage over defendant No.1. The claim set up by the plaintiffs was also stated to be highly belated on the ground that they were well aware of the Will executed in favour of the defendant. The Will was also admitted by the plaintiffs throughout to be legal and valid.
6. It was averred that late Smt. Mathi executed the Will as she was satisfied with the services rendered by the defendant during her lifetime and the mutation on the basis of the Will was also stated to have been rightly executed. The plaintiffs wanted to grab the property by exercising undue influence and pressuring the defendant in whose favour the General Power of Attorney had been executed by Smt. Mathi on the basis of which the defendant had executed the sale deeds in favour of different persons. The suit was also stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The decision of Smt. Mathi during her lifetime was also alleged by the defendant and thereafter the defendant is in joint possession on the basis of the Will which was stated to have been executed by Smt. Mathi out of her free volition to avoid any dispute regarding the succession of the property. It was also averred that Smt. Mathi was keeping good health and sound mind at the time of executing the gift deed and it was denied that the share of Smt. Mathi did not revert, as alleged in the plaint. The claim of the plaintiffs was stated to be false and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement in which the averments made in the plaint were reasserted and reafÏrmed. The knowledge regarding execution of the Will or its admission on behalf of the plaintiffs was denied. The witnesses of the Will were stated to be a fraud of the defendant. It was averred that some impostor was produced before the Registrar at the time of registration of the alleged Will and the mutation was also stated to have been sanctioned without the notice to the plaintiffs. It was averred that the plaint
