Back
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Sonia Bai and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Dashrath Sahu and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.95 of 2015
Decided on 28.2.2022
(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 (c) – Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 68 – Proof of execution of Will – It is for Propounder had to show that Will was signed by testator and testator was in sound and disposing state of mind at relevant time – It is for Propounder to establish that testator had understood nature and effect of disposition and put his signature/thumb impression on his own free will – In absence of such evidence brought on record by plaintiff it cannot be said that plaintiff has cleared doubt over Will – Validity of Will is not proved in accordance with provisions of law and suspicious circumstances are available on record which have not been cleared by plaintiff by placing material on record – Judgment and decree so far as holding that plaintiff is owner of suit land set aside. (Paras 19 and 22)
(B) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6 – Partition of coparcenary property – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property – Since plaintiff and defendants are coparcener of joint Hindu family property, as per Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, daughters are also entitled for getting equal share in property inherited by their parents – Defendants and plaintiff are entitled to get equal share in property as per Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005. (Para 26)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal points are as follows:
Proof of Will Execution: The propounder of a Will must demonstrate that the Will was signed by the testator and that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution. The evidence must establish that the testator understood the nature and effect of the disposition and signed the Will voluntarily (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Validity of Will: The Will must be executed in accordance with legal requirements, including proper attestation by at least two witnesses who have seen the testator sign or acknowledge the Will in their presence. The circumstances surrounding the execution, such as the testator’s mental capacity and the presence of suspicious circumstances, are critical in determining its validity (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Suspicious Circumstances and Doubts: The proximity of the Will’s execution date to the testator’s death, the absence of the testator’s medical evidence, and the non-disclosure of certain facts (such as the existence of other children) raise doubts about the mental capacity of the testator and the authenticity of the Will. These suspicious circumstances require thorough clarification by the propounder (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Rights of Coparceners: Daughters of a coparcener are entitled to an equal share in the coparcenary property as sons, with rights and liabilities similar to those of sons. This is applicable to properties inherited after the enactment of the relevant amendments, and the rights are conferred by birth, regardless of whether the daughter was alive on the date of the amendment or not (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Equal Share in the Property: Since the property was inherited by the deceased mother, the plaintiff and defendants, being coparceners, are entitled to an equal share in the property as per the amended Hindu Succession Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Rejection of Will and Counter Claims: The Will was not proved in accordance with legal requirements, and suspicious circumstances cast doubt on its authenticity. Consequently, the claim based on the Will is invalid, and the rights of the coparceners, including the defendants’ counter claim, are upheld, granting them an equal share in the property (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Effect of Sale and Additional Parties: The sale of part of the land to a third party was considered, and the impact on the property rights was acknowledged. The sale deed and subsequent proceedings have been incorporated into the case, affecting the distribution of shares (!) (!) .
Overall Decision: The appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court are set aside, and a decree is issued granting the defendants an equal share in the property, recognizing their rights as coparceners under the amended Hindu Succession Act (!) (!) .
These points collectively reflect the legal principles and findings established in the case regarding the validity of the Will, the rights of coparceners, and the distribution of property among heirs.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.—This First Appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2015 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 124-A/2014, whereby learned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1, dismissed the counter claim filed by appellants/defendants No.1 to 3. Learned trial Court in its impugned judgment on the basis of Will executed on 28.10.2010 by testatrix Late Kachra Bai, who was mother of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 has held that plaintiff/respondent No.1. Dashrath Sahu is the owner of lands bearing khasra Nos.61/14,291/1, B/2, 291/1, M/2, 291/4 total khasra Nos.4 area 0.457 hectare and khasra Nos.291/1, T/3, area 0.101 hectares, 2.31 acrea.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No.124-A/2014 which was filed for declaration of title and grant of permanent injunction.
3. The plaint averments in brief are that defendants Smt. Sonia Bai, Smt. Munni Bai and Smt. Pushpa Bai all are residents of Bilaspur. The suit land already described by this Court in the above paragraph is the self-acquired property of Smt. Kachra Bai, mother of defendants No.1 to 3 and plaintiff. The name of Smt. Kachra Bai was recorded as title holder of the suit land. It has been further pleaded that plaintiff has taken care of his mother till his lifetime, all the last rituals have been performed by him and due to care taken by him Smt. Kachra Bai bequeathed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 28.10.2010 and since then plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The defendants are neither in possession nor title holder of the suit land. After death of Smt. Kachra Bai, plaintiff has moved an application for mutation of the suit land in his name being successor per Will dated 28.10.2010 executed by Smt. Kachra Bai. The name of plaintiff has been mutated in the revenue record as the land owner on 10.09.2013. The defendants No. 1 to 3 had preferred an appeal wherein they have raised an objection that the plaintiff is not only successor of Smt. Kachra Bai and they are also the successor of Smt. Kachra Bai, as such their names should also been recorded in the revenue record.
4. The defendants No. 1 to 3 are illegally interfering in the title and ownership of the suit land which is owned by the plaintiff, this has necessitated the plaintiff to file present suit for declaration and for grant of permanent injunction.
5. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint contending that the Will dated 28.10.2010 is forged one, as such, on the basis of forged document, order of mutation is illegal and against the provisions of law, therefore, order dated 10.09.2013 is not binding upon them. Defendants No. 1 to 3 have not been arrayed as parties in mutation proceedings, the Will is forged one and against the Hindu Succession Act as well as Indian Evidence Act and on the basis of forged Will the plaintiff cannot acquire any right over the property. It has been further averred that the plaintiff has submitted an affidavit before the Revenue authority stating that he is the sole son of his parents and except him no other child was born from the wedlock of his parents and on the basis of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff, his name has been recorded in the revenue record which is illegal and would pray for rejection of the civil suit. The defendants have filed their counter claim, claiming that the plaintiff has no right to succeed in the property as per Mitakshara Branch of Hindu Law, the daughters are also entitled to get share in the property. Defendants No.1 to 3 have submitted that the suit land is an ancestral property as such they are also coparcener in the suit land, therefore, order passed by the Revenue authority ignoring the provisions of law is illegal an
SupremeToday
(1) Proof of execution of Will—It is for Propounder had to show that Will was signed by testator and testator was in sound and disposing state of mind at relevant time.(2) Partition of coparcenary pr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the validity of a Will in accordance with the law, and the entitlement of daughters as coparceners under the amended Hindu....
The judgment establishes the principle that the coparcenary rights of daughters in ancestral property are determined by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act No.1 of 1990 and the Hindu Succession (Ame....
The court affirmed that under the Hindu Succession Act, daughters do not inherit coparcenary property prior to the 2005 amendment, and the plaintiff's title was upheld against the defendant's claims.
Children from void marriages cannot inherit ancestral property; their rights are confined to their parent's property, consistent with Hindu Succession Act amendments.
Title suit – Once constitution of coparcenary changes by birth or death, shares have to be worked out at the time of actual partition – Shares will have to be determined in changed scenario.
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
