Back
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.
Rambha Bai and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Vijay Kumar Verma and Ors. – Respondents
SA No. 224 of 2022
Decided on 22.8.2025
Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 read with Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Proof of execution of Will – A person propounding Will has got to prove that Will was duly and validly executed – That cannot be done by simply proving that signature on Will was that of testator but must also prove that attestations were also made properly – If one attesting witness can prove execution of Will, examination of other attesting witness can be dispensed with – Where one attesting witness examined to prove Will under Section 68 of Evidence Act fails to prove due execution of Will then other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in all respects – Where one attesting witness is examined and he fails to prove attestation of Will by other witness there will be deficiency in meeting mandatory requirements of Section 68 of Evidence Act – Where Will is a registered document, there is presumption regarding genuineness thereof – Burden would lie on party, who disputed its existence to establish that it was not executed in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances, which made the same doubtful. (Paras 21 and 24)
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
This is defendants’ Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2022, passed by 4th Upper District Judge, Balodabazar, at Bhatapara, in Civil Appeal No. 04-A/2019, affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, in Civil Suit No. A/122/2014, whereby learned trial Court allowed the civil suit filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff by declaring his title on 1/8th share of suit land directing the appellants/defendants to handover possession of the same after partition of it. Vide aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court has also allowed the counter-claim filed by respondent No. 2 / defendant No. 3 – Vyasnarayan and granted the same decree in his favour, as has been granted in favour of plaintiff.
[For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the plaint]
2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, as projected by plaintiff in his plaint, are that both the parties are brothers and sisters (except defendant No.1 – Rambhabai). Following genealogical tree would demonstrate the relationship among the parties:-
(Matter in Other Language)
[Subsequently name of Kailash Bai & Shanti Bai were also added as defendants No. 7 & 8, respectively, stating them to be daughter of Kheduram Verma]
2.1 It is averred by the plaintiff that after death of first wife, Kheduram got married with second wife – Rambha Bai. Kheduram was having title and possession over the land bearing Khasra Nos. 26/1 (wrongly mentioned as 36/1), 169/1, 405/1, 429, 420/1, 430/13, area 0.243 hectare, 0.012 hectare, 0.283 hectare 0.085 hectare, 1.66 hectare & 0.405 hectare, respectively . He (Kheduram) was also having possession over Abadi land bearing Khasra No. 868/11, area 0.085 hectare (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’). Kheduram died on 27.06.1989. Thereafter, dispute erupted between plaintiff and defendants in respect of suit land, to which on 21.01.1996, a settlement was made by village Panchayat with the consent of both the parties, but violating the terms of settlement, defendants deleted name of plaintiff-Vijay Kumar from the revenue record and forcefully constructed house on the suit land bearing Khasra No. 868 / 11. Being son of late Khedu Ram, the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/4th share of suit land and also entitled to get partition and possession on his share. The plaintiff has denied the averments made by defendants No. 2, 4 & 5 that late Kheduram had executed Will dated 4.7.1988 in their favour, as he has no right to execute Will in respect of suit land and if there is any such Will, then it is false and fabricated, hence it does not confer any exclusive title to them.
3. Respondents / defendants No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 filed their joint written statement stating inter alia that their father late Khedu Ram Verma had partitioned his land between the sons of his both the wives and kept the suit land (except Khasra No. 868/11) with him in his share. After that partition, plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 were having possession in their respective shares and Khedu Ram was in possession over the suit land. The plaintiff had filed an application for partition before Tahsildar, Bhatapara, which was rejected and against which, no appeal was filed by the plaintiff, hence, that order has attained finality. It has further been averred by the defendants that late Khedu Ram had bequeathed the suit land in favour of defendants No. 2, 4 & 5 vide registered Will dated 4.7.1988, therefore, plaintiff and defendant No. 3 have no right over the suit land, hence, civil suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected.
4. Defendant No. 3 - Vyasnarayan has also filed separate written statement alongwith counter claim seeking relief, as has been sought for by plaintiff in his plaint.
5. Subsequently, Kailash Bai & Shanti Bai were also impleaded as defendants No. 7 & 8, respectively in the civil suit, but they have not filed
(1) Proof of execution of Will – If one attesting witness can prove execution of Will, examination of other attesting witness can be dispensed with.(2) Where Will is a registered document, there is p....
The propounder of a Will must prove its execution and attestation in accordance with law, and any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will must be dispelled for it to be considered valid.
The execution of a will must strictly adhere to statutory requirements, including valid attestation by witnesses, and mere registration does not suffice to validate a will in the presence of suspicio....
The mere presence of beneficiaries during will execution is not sufficient to invalidate it; the burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies with the challengers.
Proof of execution of Will – There can be no interference to Will which stands proved unequivocally.
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
