Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 1090
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
M.K. Mudgal, J.
Datar Singh Kaurav - Appellant
Versus
Puspendra Singh Kaurav - Respondent
First Appeal No. 56 of 2000
Decided On : 07-08-2013
For the Appellant :Shri S.K. Jain and Shri Prakhar Goyal, Advocates
For the Respondents:Shri Anmol Khedkar, Advocate
The burden of proof lies with the propounder to establish the validity of a will, and suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a will must be satisfactorily explained.
Headnote:
Will - Property Dispute - Registration Act - Evidence Act - Civil Procedure Code - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a disputed house based on a will and a sale deed executed by the defendant's wife. The defendant contested the authenticity of the will and sale deed, alleging fraud and fabrication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the will to be fake and forged, dismissing the plaintiff's suit and ruling in favor of the defendant. The court also ordered legal action against individuals involved in preparing the forged will.
Issues: Authenticity of the will and sale deed, evidence of execution and attestation, credibility of witnesses, and ownership of the disputed property.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof lies with the propounder to establish the validity of a will. Suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a will must be satisfactorily explained. The court must be vigilant and cautious in cases where the propounder benefits substantially from the will. The court also highlighted the importance of registration and the presumption of correctness in registered documents.
Final Decision: The plaintiff's suit was dismissed, and legal action was ordered against individuals involved in preparing the forged will.
Judgment:
M.K. Mudgal, J.
1. The appellant/defendant No. 1 has filed the appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.2.2000 passed by the Court of District Judge Datia (Smt. Sushma Shrivastava) in Civil Suit No. 27-A/99 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 whereby, the plaintiff has been declared the owner of the disputed house on the basis of will Ex. P/5 and the sale deed dated 13.12.93 Ex. P/9 executed by respondent No. 2 Smt. Krishna Devi in favour of the appellant/defendant has been declared as null and void. In this appeal, the appellant is referred as defendant no. 1 and 'respondent no. 1' as plaintiff and respondent no. 2 as 'defendant no. 2'.
The undisputed facts are that-
Sudama Prasad was the owner of the disputed house situated in Bharat Mohalla Datia described in para 1 of the plaint. He purchased this house by registered sale deed in the year 1979 and died issueless leaving behind his wife Smt. Krishnadevi who executed a sale deed dated 13.12.93 in favour of the defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed Ex-P/9.
2. The facts in brief of the plaint are that Sudama Prasad after purchasing the said house pulled it down and built a new house at the same place. In the south, there was also another property in the ownership of Sudama Prasad who had sold that property to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed in year 1985. At that time, tenants of Sudama Prasad lived in his house, therefore Sudama Prasad began to live with the plaintiff's family. Father of the plaintiff was tenant of Sudama Prasad, so they had close relation. The plaintiff has further pleaded that Sudama Prasad had no heir so he had great love and affection for the plaintiff and executed a will on 9.4.92 Ex-P/5 in his favour. Sudama Prasad died on 2.5.92. After the death of Sudama Prasad, plaintiff became the owner of the disputed house. The defendant No. 2 Smt. Krishna Devi had no right to sell the disputed property. However, defendant No. 1 Datar Singh got the sale deed fraudulently executed from Krishna Devi in his favour on 13.12.93. That sale deed is null and void against the title and ownership of the plaintiff. On the basis of above facts, suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on 6.1.94.
3. The defendant No. 2 Smt. Krishna Devi has not contested the suit, besides, she filed a written statement admitting the contents of the plaint.
4. The defendant No. 1 denying the allegations of the plaint has pleaded that Sudama Prasad had never executed the will dated 9.4.92 (Ex. P/5) in favour of the plaintiff. The said will is a fake document which was prepared after the death of Sudama Prasad. The defendant has further submitted that there was no good family relation between plaintiff's father and Sudama Prasad. It is also denied in the written statement that Sudama Prasad had no heir so he had great love for the plaintiff. After the death of Sudama Prasad, his wife Smt. Krishan Devi became the owner of the disputed house and she executed the sale deed dated 13.12.1993 in favour of the defendant No. 1 after receiving the consideration and, possession of the disputed house was given by her to the defendant No. 1.
5. The learned trial Court after framing six issues and after recording evidence of both the parties and having considered the evidence has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff as the will Ex-P/5 was found proved in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, the sale deed dated 13.12.93 has been declared as null and void.
6. The following issues crop up for consideration in this appeal:-
(i) Whether or not the Will Ex-P/5 was executed by Sudama Prasad in favour of plaintiff regarding disputed house?
(ii) Whether the findings of the learned trial Court are based on proper reasonings?
7. Assailing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the trial Court are not only perverse, illegal and i
