Suit – Declaration of title – Registered Will – Family settlement – Distribution of the properties – Plaintiff-LB (second wife of MR) filed a suit being original suit no. 2 of 1991 for declaration of her title over the suit schedule properties i.e., the properties which came to her share under the registered Will dated 24.07.1974 executed by MR – Defendant-M (son of MR from his first marriage) set up a case in his written statement that the properties were joint ancestral properties and as MR died intestate in the year 1983, he became the sole coparcener of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) – Trial Court decreed suit in favour of plaintiff and declared her to be a true owner of the suit scheduled properties – However, the High Court set aside the trial Court’s judgment and held that the defendant-M was entitled to 3/4th share and the plaintiff-LB was entitled to only 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties – Correctness: Held: 1. The genuineness of the Will is beyond doubt because it not only confers the right and title over a part of the land owned by the Testator, MR to the plaintiff-LB, but it also grants a lion’s share of the property to the defendant-M – Had it been the intention of MR to deprive the defendant-M of the land or if the Will had been manipulated, then the defendant-M could have been left out completely from gaining any benefits under the Will – The view taken by the trial Court being based on apropos appreciation of the evidence and the prevailing legal principles is unassailable in facts as well as in law – The High Court, manifestly erred while interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court and substituting its own findings by reducing the share of plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the suit schedule properties – The judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court is, consequently, restored. [Paras 10-12]
2. The Will is a registered document – The defendant-M in his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the said Will (Ext.-A1) to be that of his father, i.e., MR – The Will distributed the properties in defined proportions between the plaintiff-LB, defendant-M and R (widowed daughter of MR) – There is ample material on record to establish that MR anticipated that the relations between plaintiff-LB and defendant-M were not congenial and that is why, in order to avoid future conflicts, he divided his properties by way of a family settlement and bequeathed a share thereof to plaintiff-LB, while leaving the major share to his son i.e., the defendant-M – The distribution of the properties, as per the family settlement (regarding which oral evidence was led), and the registered Will is almost in the same proportions – The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof – MR admitted the fact that the plaintiff-LB was in possession of 6 acres and 16 guntas of land, which fell into her share as per the Will – In this background, the trial Court was right in holding that MR made a fair distribution of his tangible assets amongst his legal heirs by executing the Will dated 24.07.1974 and so also the oral family settlement. [Para 9]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.