Summary
The second wife of the deceased landholder sued for declaration of title to the properties allotted to her under a registered Will of 1974 and an oral family settlement; the trial court decreed the suit but the High Court, treating the land as joint family property, cut her down to a one-fourth share. The Court restored the trial decree, holding that a registered Will carries a presumption of genuineness, that the son had admitted his father's signatures on it and the plaintiff's possession of her share, and that a Will giving the lion's share to the son could not be a manipulated document.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff established her title to the suit schedule properties, including the disputed 4 acres 16 guntas later sold to a purchaser, on the basis of the registered Will and the oral family settlement.
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree and restricting the plaintiff to a one-fourth share in the properties.
Provisions considered
- Order XXII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908After the plaintiff died during the appeal without legal representatives, the heirs of the purchaser of the disputed 4 acres 16 guntas sought permission under this rule to represent her estate to that extent. (¶ 4.14)
Held
- The Will being a registered document, there is a presumption of its genuineness and the burden lies on the party disputing it, the defendant-son, to establish that it was not executed as alleged or that suspicious circumstances surround it; the son instead admitted his father's signatures on the Will and the plaintiff's possession of the 6 acres 16 guntas that fell to her share under it. (¶ 9)
- The distribution under the oral family settlement and under the registered Will was in almost the same proportions, and the evidence, including the admitted possession of the suit properties by the plaintiff and later by her purchaser, fortified the existence and persuasive nature of the oral family settlement. (¶ 9)
- The genuineness of the Will was beyond doubt because it conferred only part of the land on the plaintiff while granting the lion's share to the son; had the testator wished to deprive the son, or had the Will been manipulated, the son could have been left out entirely. (¶ 10)
- The trial court was fully justified in decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and granting the plaintiff absolute rights over the suit properties including the disputed 4 acres 16 guntas; the High Court manifestly erred in substituting its own findings and reducing the plaintiff's share. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015 allowed; High Court judgment dated 23.01.2014 set aside and the trial court's judgment and decree dated 15.11.1994 restored; Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 (by the defendant's legal representatives) dismissed; no order as to costs.