Back
1997 Supreme(MP) 694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
C.K. Prasad, J.
Sudarshan Prasad
Vs.
Smt. Laxmi Bai and Ors.
F.A. No. 140 of 1994 (J)
Decided On: 01.10.1997
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. J.P. Sanghi, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. Abhay Sapre, Advocate
A Hindu widow's will is void and cannot be validated by the consent of the reversioners, and a decree obtained by a Hindu widow in a suit for possession does not confer upon her the exclusive ownership of the property.
Headnote:
WILL - ATTESTATION - ESTOPPEL - HINDU LAW - WIDOW'S ESTATE - WILL BY WIDOW - VALIDITY - DECREE IN WIDOW'S FAVOUR - EFFECT ON REVERSIONERS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title over a house and land, claiming ownership through a will executed by Govindibai, the widow of Sitaram, who had inherited the property from his father Ratan Mishra. The defendants, daughters of Kalka Prasad, Sitaram's brother, contested the will's validity and claimed title to the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the will was void and that Govindibai did not become the exclusive owner of the property by virtue of a decree obtained in a previous suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the principle of estoppel did not apply in this case because the will was not put into effect during Govindibai's lifetime and that the defendants' predecessor-in-interest, by attesting the will, did not consent to its terms. The court also held that the decree obtained by Govindibai in the previous suit only conferred her the right of possession and not title, and that she did not have the authority to execute the will.
Issues: 1. Whether the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants being attesting witness and had knowledge of the will, are estopped from challenging the will on the principle of estoppel? 2. Whether Govindibai had become the exclusive owner of the property by virtue of the decree ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of estoppel does not apply in the case of a will executed by a Hindu widow, as the will takes effect after her death and the reversioners have no vested interest in the property during her lifetime. 2. A decree obtained by a Hindu widow in a suit for possession does not confer upon her the exclusive ownership of the property, and she cannot execute a will disposing of the property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that the will was void and that the defendants were entitled to the property.
C.K. Prasad, J.
1. This is plaintiff's first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title over the house and the land adjoining thereto, as also for its vacant possession. First Additional District Judge, Khandwa by judgment and decree dated 11.2.94 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1988 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
2. According to the genealogical table which is not disputed, Ratan Mishra (deceased) had three sons who are all dead, namely Hiralal, Ramnarayan and Sitaram. Hiralal and Sitaram died issuless. Wife of Sitaram is Govindibai. Ramnarayan had a son namely, Ayodhya Prasad (deceased) who had two sons, namely, Laxman Prasad and Kalka Prasad, who are also dead. Laxman Prasad had two sons, namely, Sudershan Prasad and Surya Prasad. Sudarashan Prasad is the plaintiff in the case. Wife of Kalka Prasad is Laxmi bai who had three daughters, one of whom had predeceased her and others are defendants Pushpabai and Kusumbai Laxmibai was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit, and after her death two sons of her deceased daughter have been substituted in her place.
3. According to the plaintiff Nazul plot No. 148 having an area of 10475 sq. ft., over which houses were existing belonged to Ratan Mishra. After his death his three sons, namely, Hiralal, Ramnarayan and Sitaram inherited the property. According to the plaintiff in the year 1894 partition took place between the three brothers and all of them came in possession of the house as also the land falling in their respective shares. According to the plaintiff disputed plot as also the house constructed over the same fell into the share of Sitaram and so long he was alive, he used the same for his benefit and after his death his wife Govindibai remained in possession thereof. It is the plaintiff's case that Sitaram and Govindi Bai had no issue. In the disputed house there was a family temple of Bhagwan Ramchandraji and Bhagwan Mahedeoji. According to the plaintiff Sitaram died in the year 1896 whereas Govindibai died on 26.11.1939.
4. According to the plaintiff Govindibai executed a registered will on 7.6.1929 in relation to the suit property in favour of plaintiff Sudarshan Prasad. In the said will Ayodhya Prasad and Laxman Prasad as also predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Kalka Prasad are attesting witnesses. According to the plaintiff after the death of Govindibai in the year 1939 he is the exclusive owner of the suit property in view of the will. According to the plaintiff as predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Kalka Prasad having consented and attested the will, defendants are estopped from challenging the will.
5. Case of the plaintiff further is that in execution of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 495-B of 1923 against Ayodhya Prasad, Laxman Prasad and Kalka Prasad, the decree-holder attempted to take possession of the suit property but Govindibai declined to give possession and filed Civil Suit No. 22 of 1927. According to the plaintiff decree was passed in favour of Govindibai on 22.9.1927 and appeal preferred by the decree-holder of Civil Suit No. 495-B of 1923 was dismissed by the District Judge and the second appeal, by the Judicial Commissioner. According to the plaintiff by virtue of the said decree Govindibai had sole right, title and interest over the disputed property.
6. According to the plaintiff, Kalka Prasad got his name mutated in Nazul Khasra. Kalka Prasad died on 13.5.1985. According to the plaintiff in some portion of the ground floor as also the first floor Kalka Prasad used to stay alongwith his wife and daughters. After the death of Kalka Prasad defendants filed application for mutating their names in place of Kalka Prasad, which was objected by the plaintiff and ultimately the Sub Divisional Officer asked the parties to seek declaration of their title. On the basis of the aforesaid premises plaintiff prayed for declaration that h
