SAVITRI BAI vs Leeladhar

Page 1 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)

CGHC010163962015 2026:CGHC:45541
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU
Date:
2026.10.28
16:47:58
+0530
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 43 of 2015
{Arising out of judgment and decree dated 27-1-2010 in Civil Appeal
th
No.5A/2007 of the 8 Additional District Judge (FTC), Durg}
Judgment reserved on: 25-9-2026
Judgment delivered on: 28-10-2026
Judgment (Full) uploaded on: 28-10-2026
1. Savitri Bai, Wd/o late Devdatt (wrongly typed name as Devdhar)
2. Ravishankar, S/o late Devdatt, aged about 49 years,
3. Maya Shankar, S/o late Devdatt, aged about 46 years,
4. Umashankar, S/o late Devdatt, aged about 38 years,
All are R/o Village Odar Sakri, Post Office Gabdi, Via Arjunda, Tahsil
Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.)
5.
Khiland, S/o late Devdatt, aged about 35 years, R/o Village
Panchsheel Nagar, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.)
6. Smt. Leela Bai (wrongly typed name as Lilidev), W/o Purshottam
Yadav, R/o Jhurhatola, Post Office Awari Daudi, Tahsil Balod,
District Durg (C.G.)
7. Kamleshwari (Died) Through LRs
7 A. Toman Lal, S/o Late Salik Ram, aged about 37 years, R/o Village
Manaud, Post Tarod, Tahsil & District Balod (C.G.)
7B. Atmaram Yadav, S/o Late Lakhanlal Yadav, aged about 64 years,
R/o Village Manaud, Post Tarod, Tahsil & District Balod (C.G.)

Page 2 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
7C. Gayatri Yadav, D/o Late Lakhanlal Yadav, Wd/o Late
Nandkumar Yadav, aged about 59 years, R/o Village Rengakathera,
Post Mayaldabri, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
7D. Meena Yadav, D/o Late Dinbandhu Yadav, aged about 41 years,
7E. Prabha Yadav, D/o Late Dinbandhu Yadav, aged about 38 years,
7F. Ghanshyam Yadav, S/o Late Dinbandhu Yadav, aged about 35
years
7G. Vibha Yadav, D/o Late Dinbandhu Yadav, aged about 32 years,
7H. Seema Yadav, D/o Late Dinbandhu Yadav, aged about 30 years,
Appellant No.7D to 7H are R/o Village Machoud, Post Tavera, Tahsil
Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.)
7I. Revti Yadav, D/o Late Lakhanlal Yadav, W/o Shri Dhansingh
Yadav, aged about 56 years, W/o Shri Dhansingh Yadav, R/o Village
New Borsi Colony, M.I.G. 359, Post Borsi, Tahsil & District Durg
(C.G.)
7J. Girdhari Yadav, S/o Late Lakhan Lal Yadav, aged about 54 years,
R/o Village Manaud, Post Tarod, Tahsil & District Balod (C.G.)
7K. Girish Kumar Yadav (Died) Through LRs
7K-i. Sangeeta Yadav, Wd/o Late Girish Kumar Yadav, aged about 50
years, R/o Village Manaud, Post Tarod, Tehsil & District Balod (C.G.)
7K-ii. Yogendra Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Girish Kumar Yadav, aged
about 24 years, R/o Village Manaud, Post Tarod, Tehsil & District
Balod (C.G.)
7K-iii. Urvashi Yadu, D/o Late Girish Kumar Yadav, W/o Shri
Harikishan Yadu, aged about 26 years, R/o Ward No.62 (Mahamaya
Mandir Ward), Purani Basti, Mahamai Para, Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.)
7L. Bhuneshwari Yadav, D/o Late Lakhanlal Yadav, W/o Shri Rohit
Kumar Yadav, aged about 48 years, R/o Village Kouchwahi, Post
Pondh, Tahsil & District Balod (C.G.)
8. Kasturi Bai, W/o late Harilal (wrongly typed name as Helal) Yadav,
D/o late Pyarelal Yadav, R/o Village Dotopar, Post Sanaud, Palari,
Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.)
(Plaintiffs)
... Appellants

Page 3 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
versus
1. Leeladhar, S/o Murlidhar, aged about 48 years, R/o Village & Post
Latabod, Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.)
2. a. Smt Radha Bai, Wd/o late Ramkhilawan Yadav, D/o late Lakhan
Lal, Kayasthapara, Near house of Advocate Ramanujlal Yadav, Durg,
Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.)
2b. Smt. Amrika Bai, D/o late Lakhanlal, Wife of not known, R/o C/o
Mohan Yadav Kirana PCO, Village and Post Bhansoj, Via Aarang,
District Raipur (C.G.)
2c. Smt. Godawari Bai, W/o Sukhen, D/o late Lakhanlal, R/o Village
Thethawar Para, Village and Post Pathari Lal Bahadur Nagar, Tahsil
Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
2d. Smt. Kirti Bai, W/o Pawan Yadav, D/o late Lakhanlal, R/o Village
Odar Sakri, Police Gabdi, Via Arjunda, District Durg (C.G.)
2d. Smriti Yadav (wrongly typed name as Miti Yadav) (Deleted)
3. Kunti Bai (died issueless) (Deleted)
4. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.)
(Defendants)
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.4 : Ms. K. Radhika, Panel Lawyer.
Single Bench: -
Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, J.
C.A.V. Judgment
1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants herein/plaintiffs have
preferred this appeal challenging the judgment & decree dated 27-1-
th
2010 passed by the First Appellate Court – 8 Additional District
Judge (FTC), Durg in Civil Appeal No.5A/2007 , arising out of the
th
judgment & decree dated 8-2-2005 passed by the Trial Court – 5

Page 4 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
Civil Judge Class-II, Durg in Civil Suit No.13A/2000, by which the
learned Trial Court has decreed the suit for declaration of title and
permanent injunction declaring the appellants herein/plaintiffs as
owners of the disputed property as well as declaring the Adoption deed
dated 23-12-1992 ( Ex.D-1 ) and the Will deed dated 2-7-1995 ( Ex.D-
2 ) as null and void. The First Appellate Court while partly allowing the
appeal filed on behalf of defendant No.1/respondent No.1 herein has set
aside the finding recorded by the Trial Court in respect of issue No.5.
Factual Matrix
-:Case of the Original Plaintiff/Appellants herein before the
Trial Court:-
(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as
per their status shown and ranking given in the civil suit before the Trial
Court.)
2. Following tables will demonstrate the relationship among the parties: -
Table I
Nahar Singh (died)
(grand-father of original plaintiff Pyarelal )
Son – Jaylal (died)
(father of original plaintiff
Son – Hari Singh (Heera Singh) (died)
(paternal uncle of original plaintiff
Pyarelal)
Pyarelal)
Table II
Jaylal
(father of original plaintiff Pyarelal)
Hari Singh (Heera Singh)
(paternal uncle of original plaintiff
Pyarelal)
Son – Pyarelal
Son – Lakhanlal
Son – Gangdev
Son - Manthir
(original
Plaintiff)
(original
defendant
(died)
Kanti Bai (died
(died)
Kunti Bai (original
No.2)
issue-less)
defendant No.3)

Page 5 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
3. It has been pleaded that late Nahar Singh was the owner of the
ancestral property comprising Khasra Nos. 580/2, 1421 and 929 ,
admeasuring 0.33 hectare, 0.17 hectare and 0.88 hectare ,
respectively, with a total area of 1.38 hectares , situated at Village
Odar-Sakri , Patwari Halka No.13 , Revenue Inspector Circle
Gunderdehi, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (now District
Balod) . The suit property had already been partitioned approximately
50 years ago, and thereafter, the same was recorded in the revenue
records in the names of the legal heirs, namely, the original plaintiff
Pyarelal , defendant No. 2 Lakhan Lal , and Kanti Bai (wife of
Gangdev , son of the paternal uncle of the plaintiff Heera Singh), who
are stated to be the legal heirs of Jay Lal and Heera Singh, the two
sons of late Nahar Singh , as reflected in Annexure A appended to
the plaint.
4.
It has also been pleaded that, in the partition, the plaintiff got Khasra
Nos.580/2 and 1421 , admeasuring 0.33 hectare and 0.17
hectare , respectively, whereas Khasra No.929, admeasuring 0.88
hectare , (hereinafter referred as suit land ) was received by Gangdeo .
It has also been pleaded that the disputed land was recorded in the
name of late Gangdeo and during his lifetime, he was in possession
and was cultivating the land. After the death of Gangdeo , the name of
his wife, Kanti Bai , was recorded in the revenue records. Kanti Bai
also died issue-less on 28-8-1995. Upon her death, her name was
required to be deleted from the revenue records and the suit property
was claimed to devolve upon the plaintiff, Pyare Lal, as her legal heir.

Page 6 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
However, defendant No. 1, Leeladhar , who was the son of Kanti
Bai’s brother, applied before the Naib Tehsildar, Gunderdehi, for
mutation of his name in the revenue records, claiming to be her adopted
son.
5.
Hence, the original plaintiff, Pyare Lal, instituted a suit seeking
declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed
land comprising Khasra Nos.580/2, 1421 and 929, admeasuring
0.33 hectare, 0.17 hectare and 0.88 hectare, respectively, with a
total area of 1.38 hectares, as described in Annexure A a ppended to
the plaint. He also sought a declaration that the alleged adoption deed
executed in favour of defendant No.1, Leeladhar, was not binding
upon him, and that Leeladhar was not the adopted son of late
Kanti Bai . The original plaintiff Pyarelal further sought a permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his rights
over the suit land.
-: Written Statement of Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1 herein
before the Trial Court :-
6. Defendant No.1/respondent No.1 Leeladhar herein filed written
statement on 10-4-2000 denying the averments made in the plaint. He
has pleaded that he has also been in possession of Khasra No.929,
area 0.88 hectare , and has been cultivating the said land. He has
denied the plaintiff's claim regarding ownership and possession. It has
further been pleaded by defendant No.1 Leeladhar that Gangdev died
on 2-6-1990 and thereafter his wife Kanti Bai died on 28-8-1995, they
were issue-less and thereafter, the property devolved upon the persons

Page 7 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
entitled thereto. He has denied the plaintiff's assertion regarding
succession and has stated that the claim made by the plaintiff is not
legally sustainable.
7.
Defendant No.1, Leeladhar , further pleaded that late Kanti Bai
had no children and had adopted him by a registered adoption deed
dated 23-12-1992. She had also executed a Will dated 2-7-1995 in his
favour. Accordingly, the land received by Kanti Bai in the partition
devolved upon him, and the plaintiff had no right or title over the said
property.
8. Despite service of notice on 3-11-1997, defendant Nos.2 & 3 remained
absent and consequently, they were proceeded ex parte . Similarly,
despite service of notice on 16-2-1999, defendant No.4/State remained
absent and, therefore, proceedings against it were also conducted ex
parte.
-: Proceedings before the Trial Court :-
9. The Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence
available on record, framed following issues for determination of the
controversy involved therein and answered the issues as under:-
S.No. Questions for Consideration Finding
‐
1. क्या ग्रामओडा रसकरीतह गुण्डरदेहीजिला दुर्गस्थि तकृषि
‐ ‐ 580@2 0‐33 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1421] 0‐17 ‐
भूमि ख न रकबा हेखं न रकबा हेवादी
\
कोबंटवारमेंप्राप्तहुईहै
a
प्रमाणित नही है ।
‐ ‐ ‐
2. क्याग्रामओडारस्करीतह गण्डरदेहीजिलादुर्गस्थि तभूमि ख न
929 0‐88 Û
रकबा हेक्टेयरभूमि स्व गंगदेवएवंमंथीरकेनिःसंतान
\
मृतहोनेकेकारणविधिकउत्तराधिकारवादीकोप्राप्तहुईहै
a
प्रमाणित नही है ।
3. &1 Û \
क्याप्रतिवादीक्र स्व गंगदेवएवंक्रांतिबाईकागोदपुत्रहै नहीं ।
\
4. क्याप्रतिवादीकावादसमयावधि बाधितहै नहीं ।
5. - - 2&6&1995 &1
क्यास्व क्रंतिबाईनेदि कोप्रतिवादीक्र केपक्षमें
\
वादग्रस्तसंपत्तिसेसंबंधितवसीयतनामानिष्पादितकी
नहीं ।

Page 8 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)

6. सहायताएवंव्यय वाद आंशिक रुप से
स्वीकार किया गया ।
-: Evidence adduced before the Trial Court:-
Evidence led by the Pl aintiff:-
10. Before the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff has examined himself as
Pyarelal (PW-1) and Palturam (PW-2) in support of his case. In
support of his oral testimony, he has neither produced nor exhibited any
document. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff.
Evidence led by the Defendants :-
11. Similarly, defendant No.1 in support of his case has examined himself as
Leeladhar Yadav (DW-1), Bisram Prasad (DW-2) & Chintaram
(DW-3) before the trial Court and in support of his oral testimony, he
has produced and exhibited documents Ex.D-1 – Adoption deed dated
23-12-1992 & Ex.D-2 – Will deed dated 2-7-1995.
12. Despite service of notice, defendants No.2, 3 & 4 failed to appear
before the learned Trial Court and were accordingly, proceeded ex
parte . Consequently, no written statement was filed on their behalf.
Even thereafter, the defendants did not participate in the proceedings
and adduce any evidence in support of their case. Neither any oral
evidence nor any documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of
defendants No.2, 3 & 4 .
Judgment of the Trial Court:-
13. Parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence and after completion
of trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 8-2-2005

Page 9 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff, declaring the adoption deed
dated 23-12-1992 (Ex.D-1) and the Will deed dated 2-7-1995 (Ex.D-2)
as null and void, and conferring no right or title upon original defendant
No. 1 Leeladhar.
-: Finding of the First Appellate Court/Impugned Judgment :-
14.Being aggrieved by the judgment & decree dated 8-2-2005 passed by
the Trial Court in Civil Suit No.13A/2000 (Pyarelal v. Leeladhar and
three others) decreeing the suit, defendant No.1 has filed appeal being
Civil Appeal No.5A/2007 (Leeladhar v. Savitri Bai and others)
before the First Appellate Court.
15.The learned First Appellate Court, upon consideration of the evidence
and material available on record, partly allowed the appeal and reversed
the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on Issue No.5, which
had been decided in favour of the plaintiff, and held that the Will had
been executed by Kunti Bai in favour of defendant No.1, Leeladhar.
being aggrieved against which this second appeal has been preferred.
-: Substantial Questions of Law :-
16. This second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants herein was
admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether finding of the Lower Appellate Court holding
that the execution of the Deed of Will dated 02.07.1995
(Ex.D-2), purported to have been executed by one Kanti Bai
wd/o Gangdev, in favour of Defendant No.1-Leeladhar,
cannot be held to be declared as null and void in absence of
seeking the relief for its cancellation by the Plaintiff, is
perverse?

Page 10 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case,
the due execution, attestation and validity of the Deed of Will
dated 02.07.1995 (Ex. D-2), purported to have been executed
by one Kanti Bai wd/o Gangdev in favour of Defendant No.1-
Leeladhar, was duly established by its propounder in the light
of the provisions prescribed under Section 68 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872?
-: Analysis and findings of the Second Appellate Court :-
17.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, this Court proceeds to examine the substantial questions of law
involved in the present appeal.
-: Submissions of the Appellants herein :-
18. Vide written submission, Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants herein/plaintiffs, while reiterating the grounds
urged in the memorandum of appeal, submitted that the learned First
Appellate Court has failed to consider the statement of Leeladhar
Yadav (DW-1) who has categorically stated that at the time of
adoption ( Ex.D-1 ), his age was 38 years and he was having four
children. The learned First Appellate Court has further failed to
consider his statement in which he has specifically stated that in his
statement before the Court he has used the name of his biological father
Murlidhar in spite of the fact that he was adopted son of late Kanti Bai,
Wd/o late Gangdev. He has also stated, it is also true that it is not
mentioned in the adoption deed that his mother and father had agreed
for the said adoption and moreover, at the time of execution of the Will
( Ex.D-2 ), he was not present and the Will was also not registered.

Page 11 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
19. Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, further
submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has also failed to
consider that the appellants/plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed
land and also failed to consider the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule
7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which states that the relief which
the plaintiff claims has to be specifically stated in the plaint. In support
of his contention, Mr. Patel, learned counsel, would rely upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bachhaj Nahar v.
1
Nilima Mandal and others and that of this Court in the matter of
2
Chinttaram Pandey v. Kanti Bai and others .
20. Mr. Patel has also submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has
failed to consider that the attesting witnesses of the Will ( Ex.D-2 )
namely, Chintaram, S/o Judavan and Bhagwan Singh, S/o Bisauha,
have not been examined and that the First Appellate Court has wrongly
reversed the finding of the Trial Court regarding Will dated 2-7-1995.
He would further rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court
in the matter of S.R. Srinivasa and others v. S.
3
Padmavathamma to buttress his submission. Moreover, the Will is
in favour of the defendants and in that situation, the plaintiff cannot
claim for cancellation or rejection of Will Ex.D-2 at the stage of
evidence in trial. It is further contended on behalf of the appellants/
plaintiffs that the learned First Appellate Court has failed to consider
that the witnesses of the documents Exs.D-1 & D-2 are one and same
1 AIR 2009 SC 1103
2 2020(2) CGLJ 427
3 2010(3) CGLJ 433

Page 12 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
persons, which creates doubt and suspicion, as the signatures of both
the witnesses are different in both the documents i.e. Exs.D-1 & D-2 .
21. In support of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants/
plaintiffs, Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel, would also rely upon the
decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Dhani Ram
4
(died) through L.Rs. and others v. Shiv Singh and B.
5
Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh and others .
-: Submissions of Respondent No.1 herein/Defendant No.1 :-
22. Mr. Somnath Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1 herein/defendant No.1, while opposing the instant second appeal
supports the judgment & decree of the First Appellate Court and
submits that the learned First Appellate Court has rightly reversed the
judgment & decree of the Trial Court in respect of issue No.5 i.e. the
Will deed Ex.D-2 executed by late Kanti Bai in favour of defendant
No.1, and as such, the judgment & decree of the First Appellate Court
requires to be affirmed and the second appeal preferred by the
plaintiffs/appellants herein deserves to be dismissed. He would rely
upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Gautam
6
Sarup v. Leela Jetly and others , Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple
7
v. Meenakshi Ammal , Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba
8
Shedage and Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad and
9
another to buttress his submission.
4 AIR 2023 SC 4787
5 AIR 2007 SC 311
6 2008 AIR SCW 4113
7 AIR Online 2014 SC 174
8 AIR 2002 SC 637
9 AIR 2002 SC 136

Page 13 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
-:Analysis:-
-:Consideration of Substantial Question of Law No.1 and 2:-
23. Both the substantial questions of law are interconnected and, therefore,
they are taken up together for consideration.
24. The present appeal is confined to the finding recorded on Issue
No.5. Having regard to the controversy involved and the findings
recorded by both the Courts below, it would be appropriate, for the sake
of convenience, to commence the discussion with the finding recorded
by the learned Trial Court on the said issue. The learned Trial Court
recorded its finding on Issue No.5 as under:
Issue No. 5 Finding
. . 2.7.1995 . 1
क्या स्व क्रांतिबाई ने दि को प्रतिवादी क्र के पक्ष में वादग्रस्त संपत्ति से
नहीं
?
संबंधित वसीयतनामा निष्पादित की
The learned First Appellate Court reversed the aforesaid finding
recorded by the learned Trial Court and, thereby, held that the Will
dated 2-7-1995 had been executed by late Kranti Bai in favour of
original defendant No.1 Leeladhar . Aggrieved by the reversal of
the finding on the said issue, the original plaintiff, Pyare Lal , has
preferred the present second appeal .
25. Both parties have advanced detailed arguments regarding the manner
in which a Will is required to be proved. Learned counsel for the
appellants/original plaintiff, Pyare Lal , has relied upon the
judgments in Dhani Ram (supra), B. Venkatamuni (supra) and
S.R. Srinivasa (supra), whereas learned counsel for the respondent/

Page 14 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
original defendant No.1, Leeladhar, has relied upon the judgment
in Madhukar D. Shende (supra).
26. The judgments relied upon by the respective parties deal with the legal
requirements for proof of a Will under Section 63 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925, read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 . The settled legal position is that a Will can be held to have
been duly proved only when the requirements prescribed under the
aforesaid provisions are duly satisfied.
27.
A perusal of the plaint filed by the appellant/original plaintiff,
Pyare Lal , before the learned Trial Court reveals that he had sought
only the relief of declaration of his title over the suit land , deletion
of the names of original defendant No.2, Lakhan, (his real
brother) , and defendant No. 3, Kunti Bai, (wife of Manthir, son of
his uncle Heera Singh) , from the revenue records, and a
declaration that the adoption deed executed by Kranti Bai , ( wife of
Gangdev, another son of his uncle Heera Singh) , in favour of
original defendant No.1, Leeladhar, was null and void and not
binding upon him.
28. Upon examination of the judgment of the learned Trial Court, it
emerges that no relief was granted in respect of the title over
the suit land . However, apart from granting relief in respect of
the adoption deed executed by Kranti Bai, the learned Trial Court
also granted relief in respect of the Will , the basis of which was
confined to the defence raised by the respondent/original defendant
Leeladhar in his written statement. It is pertinent to mention that the

Page 15 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
plaint contains no averment concerning the Will, nor does it seek any
relief in respect thereof, and the respondent/original plaintiff
Pyarelal has not challenged the Will in the present suit.
29.
The respondent/original defendant Leeladahr challenged the
judgment of the learned Trial Court before the First Appellate Court on
the aforesaid ground, and the learned First Appellate Court set aside the
finding of the learned Trial Court on the same basis. In the present
second appeal, the appellant/original plaintiff, Pyare Lal , has
relied upon the provisions of Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, and contended that the Court could grant relief even if
it had not been specifically claimed in the plaint, and that the learned
Trial Court had committed no error in doing so. In support of his
submission, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention to
Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC and relied upon the judgments in
Bachhaj Nahar (supra) and Chittaram (supra).
30. Per contra, the respondent/original defendant, Leeladhar , has
relied upon the judgment in Rajendra Tiwary (supra), which lays
down that a relief larger than the one claimed cannot be granted under
Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC.
31.In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to Order VII Rule 7 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under:
“ 7. Relief to be specifically stated.— Every plaint shall
state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either
simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to
ask for general or other relief which may always be given as
the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been

Page 16 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed
by the defendant in his written statement.”
32. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the
relief claimed must be specifically stated in the plaint. The Court may,
however, grant an unclaimed relief, provided that such relief is
incidental to or connected with the principal relief claimed and is
otherwise considered just and proper. The judgments relied upon by
both parties also proceed on the aforesaid legal principle.
33. The present case, however, stands on a different footing. The principal
relief claimed in the suit was a declaration of title over the suit land,
which was not granted by the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the
relief granted in respect of the Will could not have been granted in the
circumstances of the case. Firstly , no such relief was claimed in the
plaint; secondly , the relief granted was beyond the scope of, and larger
than, the relief claimed; and thirdly , once the question of the Will was
considered, the learned Trial Court ought to have examined whether, in
the event of Kranti Bai dying intestate, any other person was entitled to
succeed to the suit property.
34. Instead, the learned Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings and
evidence concerning the plaintiff alone, declared the Will to be null and
void, without examining the rights of other persons who might have
been entitled to succeed to the property. Such a determination could
not be sustained in law.
35. Before recording any conclusive finding regarding the Will, it was
necessary to examine whether Kranti Bai had any other legal heirs or

Page 17 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
persons entitled to succeed to the property, particularly since the suit
land had devolved upon her through her husband's father. These
aspects were material to the proper adjudication of the dispute and
ought to have been considered before any final conclusion was drawn
regarding the validity of the Will.
36. In view of the foregoing discussion, the learned First Appellate
Court committed no error in setting aside the finding recorded by the
learned Trial Court with regard to the Will. The finding of the learned
Trial Court, if allowed to stand, would have the effect of declaring the
Will null and void, even in relation to third parties who were not before
the Court. The view taken by the learned First Appellate Court in this
regard is, therefore, fully justified.
37. As regards the due execution and proof of the Will dated 2-7-1995 (Ex.
D-2), it would not be appropriate to record any conclusive finding in the
present appeal, particularly when, from the submissions advanced by
both parties and the written submissions filed on behalf of the
appellant/original plaintiff, it emerges that Civil Suit No.1-A/21/
2016 concerning the said Will is pending before the Court of the
learned First District Judge, Balod, Chhattisgarh. The question shall,
therefore, remain open for adjudication in the said proceedings.
38. The appellant/original plaintiff Pyarelal has referred to the
subsequent proceedings before the Revenue Courts in his written
submissions. However, the said proceedings have no bearing on the
controversy requiring adjudication in the present second appeal.

Page 18 of 18
(SA No.43/2015)
39. The learned First Appellate Court, upon consideration of the relevant
legal aspects, has reversed the finding recorded by the learned Trial
Court on Issue No.5 concerning the Will. As discussed herein above, the
finding of the learned Trial Court could not be sustained in law,
particularly in the absence of any specific relief claimed in respect of the
Will and without consideration of the rights of other persons who may
be interested in the suit property. The view taken by the learned First
Appellate Court, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity
warranting interference in the exercise of second appellate jurisdiction.
:Final Conclusion:- -
40. In view of the foregoing discussion, the second appeal is dismissed
with costs. The judgment and decree passed by the learned First
Appellate Court are affirmed.
41.Decree be drawn-up accordingly.
Sd/-
(Sushma Sawant)
JUDGE
Soma