Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 13818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J
Laxmi Kumar Kapur – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Kapur – Respondent
RFA 1022/2019 | CM APPL. 51637/2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Siddharth Dutta, Pratyush Singh
For the Respondents: Naresh Thanai, Sanjeet Malik

Mere similarity or identical language in wills executed by spouses on the same date does not establish a 'mutual will'. Mutuality requires concrete evidence of a binding agreement restricting the survivor's right of alienation. Absent such covenants, the survivor retains absolute ownership and power to transfer the property.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Appeal against dismissal of suit for partition - Dispute regarding interpretation of testamentary documents - Determining nature of simultaneously executed wills - Mere identity of terms does not constitute a mutual will - Necessity of clear evidence of binding agreement to restrict revocation or alienation. (Paras 1, 36)

(B) Wills - Mutual vs. Identical - Test of mutuality - Doctrine of mutual wills requires proof of a definite agreement between testators that neither party would revoke the will or dispose of the property contrary to the arrangement - In absence of expressed or implied covenants restricting alienation, surviving spouse attains absolute interest and authority to dispose of the estate. (Paras 32, 36, 38, 44)

Facts of the case:
A suit for partition and declaration was filed challenging the validity of gift deeds executed by a surviving parent. The claimant argued that the wills executed by both parents on the same date were mutual, thereby imposing a legal restriction on the survivor regarding the alienation of the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, concluding that the documents conferred absolute ownership to the survivor and lacked any binding element of mutuality or agreement restricting the power of disposal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the instruments were identical in phrasing but did not qualify as mutual wills. The documentation lacked a clear covenant or arrangement that would strip the surviving testator of their power of alienation. The language granting the survivor exclusive rights, interests, and control confirmed an intention to vest absolute ownership, rendering the subsequent transfers valid.

Issues: Whether the testamentary instruments constituted mutual wills creating binding irrevocable obligations on the survivor, and whether the surviving testator possessed the legal competence to alienate the property through gift deeds.

Ratio Decidendi: To establish a mutual will, there must exist a clear, definite agreement between the testators that the arrangement remains irrevocable after one death, preventing the survivor from dealing with the property contrary to the intent. Without explicit evidence of such an agreement, identical terms alone are insufficient to limit the survivor’s rights, thus establishing absolute ownership.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. examination of identical testamentary documents and initial trial findings. (Para 8 , 26 , 27 , 28)
3. conflicting interpretations on whether wills were mutual or merely identical. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. legal requirements for establishing mutual wills and creating restricted life estates. (Para 25 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
5. final confirmation of the testator's competency and dismissal of appeal. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)

Judgment reserved on: 12th March 2026

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’) has been preferred by the appellants, i.e. legal representatives of original plaintiff, seeking the setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 30th August 2019 (hereinafter ‘impugned judgment’), passed by the ADJ-02, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS No. 78742/2016 titled “Laxmi Kumar Kapur v. Ravi Kapur & Anr.”

2. By way of the impugned judgment, the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition, possession, declaration and mesne profits has been dismissed.

3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are as follows:

3.1. The original plaintiff and the defendants were siblings, being children of late Shri Jagdish Chandra Kapur (father) and Smt. Jaiwanti Kapur (mother).

3.2. The parents of the parties herein jointly owned property bearing no.C-2/114, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi (hereinafter ‘suit property’) by virtue of a Conveyance Deed dated 21st November 1993.

3.3. Both parents executed Wills dated 20th April 2006 on identical terms, whereby each testator bequeathed his/her undivided share in the suit property in favour of the surviving spouse and thereafter provided for devolution of the property amongst the legal heirs in specified proportions.

3.4. The mother of the parties, Smt. Jaiwanti Kapur expired on 8th April 2007.

3.5. Thereafter, the father executed a Gift Deed dated 8th April 2009, transferring the first and second floors of the suit property to the respondent no.1, followed by another Gift Deed dated 15th July 2010, transferring the ground floor to the respondent no.1.

3.6. Subsequently, the father also executed a Will dated 6th August 2010, providing monetary bequests to the deceased plaintiff and the respondent no.2.

3.7. The father of the parties expired on 28th February 2013.

4. The original plaintiff (since deceased) filed a suit bearing CS(OS) No.1428/2013 before this Court seeking relief of partition, declaration and mesne profits on the ground that the gift deeds and the subsequent Will were executed in complete derogation of the mutual Wills dated 20th April 2006 and are liable to be declared null and void, against the defendants. Subsequently, the said suit was transferred to the District Court on 15th February 2016.

5. An application, being I.A.9234/2014, was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to claim the relief of possession of the second floor of the suit property, which the original plaintiff claims was bequeathed to him in terms of his mother’s Will dated 20th April 2006. The said application was allowed vide order dated 15th May 2014.

6. An application under Order XV Rule 3 of the CPC was filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 seeking disposal of the suit on the basis of pleadings and material/documents on record. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 7th March 2018, wherein the Trial Court recorded that since the controversy related to the interpretation of the Wills of the parents of the parties herein, the matter can be decided without asking the parties to lead evidence.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court, the original plaintiff expired on 7th December 2018 and therefore an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 13818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIAmit Bansal, JLaxmi Kumar Kapur – AppellantVersusRavi Kapur – RespondentRFA 1022/2019 | CM APPL. 51637/2019

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J
Laxmi Kumar Kapur – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Kapur – Respondent
RFA 1022/2019 | CM APPL. 51637/2019