Metpalli Lasum Bai Since Dead And Ors. vs. Metpalli Muthaiah(D) By Lrs

2025 INSC 879


REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5921 OF 2015

METPALLI LASUM BAI
(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS ...APPELLANT(S)


VERSUS


METAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BY
LRS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015

J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. These two appeals arise out of rival claims of the
legal representatives of late Metpalli Rajanna over a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.07.21
17:54:21 IST
Reason:
1


chunk of land admeasuring 4 acres and 16 guntas
located at village Dasnapur.
3. For the sake of convenience, the genealogical
table of the parties is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“ Metpalli Ramanna
(died pre-1949)
|
|
Metpalli Rajanna
(died in 1983)
|
_________________|_________________
| |
First Marriage Second Marriage
(with Narsamma, who (with Lasum Bai ,
predeceased Rajanna ) Plaintiff, died 2015)
| |
___________|_________ No Children
| |
Muthaiah Rajamma
(D1, died in 2014) (D2, died during appeal)”

4. Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for
disposal of the appeals are as below.
4.1. The original land holder i.e., Metpalli Ramanna
died intestate prior to 1949. The total landed property
owned by Metpalli Ramanna is described below: -
2
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015

4.2. Metpalli Rajanna, the legal heir of Ramanna
married Narsamma and from their wedlock, two
1
children, namely, Muthaiah and Rajamma were
born. Narsamma died during the lifetime of M.
Rajanna who contracted second marriage with
2
Lasum Bai who did not bear any child. M. Rajanna
expired in the year 1983 and his daughter Rajamma
also died intestate on which, a dispute over the right

1
Hereinafter, referred to as “defendant-Muthaiah”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as “plaintiff-Lasum Bai”.
3
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



to property arose between plaintiff-Lasum Bai on the
one side and defendant-Muthaiah on the other.
4.3. As per the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, M. Rajanna
anticipated the disputes between her and his son
st
from the 1 marriage i.e., defendant-Muthaiah and to
avoid the same, he made an oral family arrangement
distributing his properties as below: -

4.4. M. Rajanna also executed a registered Will in
favour of plaintiff-Lasum Bai recognizing the share of
defendant-Muthaiah in the joint family properties.
th
The said Will was registered on 24 July, 1974.
4
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



4.5. The case set up on behalf of plaintiff-Lasum Bai
in the suit was that she was granted the rights over
6 acres 16 guntas from the chunk of land in Survey
No. 28 of the Village Dasnapur which was located
towards the north of the undivided plot of land
whereas, defendant-Muthaiah was granted 6 acres
16 guntas of land towards south of the said plot. The
said plot is the bone of contention between the
parties.
4.6. Admittedly, the plaintiff-Lasum Bai sold two
acres of land from her purported share to one
th
Sanjeeva Reddy vide registered sale deed dated 27
August, 1987. The said registered sale deed was
never questioned before any forum and remains
unchallenged. The plaintiff-Lasum Bai had entered
th
into another agreement on 15 July, 1987, for selling
her remaining 4 acres and 16 guntas land located in
3
Survey No. 28 of the Dasnapur Village to one
Janardhan Reddy.
4.7. Aggrieved by this agreement, defendant-
Muthaiah filed an injunction suit being Original Suit

3
Hereinafter, referred to as “disputed property”.
5
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



No. 101 of 1987 seeking an injunction against
plaintiff-Lasum Bai and to restrain her from selling
the properties which came to her share under the
registered Will including the plot admeasuring 4
th
acres 16 guntas. Vide judgment and decree dated 6
July, 1990, the said injunction suit was decreed in
favour of defendant-Muthaiah. However, it was
clearly recorded in the judgment of the District
Munsif, Adilabad that the title of plaintiff-Lasum Bai
was not being examined in the said injunction suit
and it would be open for her to file a separate suit for
declaration of title since she was claiming ownership
over the plot in question.
4.8. Accordingly, plaintiff-Lasum Bai 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
4
registered Will .
4.9. Defendant-Muthaiah set up a case in his
written statement that the properties were joint
ancestral properties and as Metpalli Rajanna died

4
Hereinafter, referred to as “suit schedule properties”.
6
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



intestate in the year 1983, he became the sole co-
parcener of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
4.10. Plaintiff-Lasum Bai based her claim on the
th
registered Will dated 24 July, 1974 which was
marked as Ext.-A1. She examined two witnesses in
support of her case. Defendant-Muthaiah appeared
and deposed as DW-1 and in his statement, he made
some significant admissions. The relevant extracts
from his deposition are quoted hereinbelow: -
“Chief Examination:

My grandfather Ramanna performed my
nd
marriage and the marriage of my elder sister 2
nd
defendant. 2 defendant is a widow and she is
residing with me. There were no divisions of the
properties during the life time of my father. My
father and myself were residing jointly. Myself
and my father were jointly cultivating the
properties mentioned by me. My father did not
execute any will. My father had not shown any
nd
will to me, 2 defendant and to the villagers. I
am presently residing in Savaragaon
village. Since 12 years I am living separately
from plaintiff. We are living separately
because my wife, is not on good terms with
the plaintiff. My father in order to save the
family from disputes allowed my mother
plaintiff to cultivate some part of the
agricultural lands. In Dist. Munsiffs court,
Adilabad I filed a suit against the present
plaintiff and in that suit, she came forward with
the plea that my father had executed a will. My
father had not executed any will. The will is a got
up document. I have five daughters. 3 of them
7
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015

8
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



rd
The 3 defendant has been cultivating 4 acres
16 guntas in Dasnapur village which was in
possession of the plaintiff since ( sic ) the time
of my filing the suit in Munsiff's court. My
mother has not sold Ac. 4-16 guntas to
rd
Janardhan Reddy 3 defendant…..

I have come to know that patta for the land in
Dasnapur to the extent of half is in the name of
the plaintiff. This I came to know after filing the
suit in Munsiffs office. I came to know that she
filed Pahanies in the Munsiffs court when I filled
the suit in the court, I came to know that she
filed Pahanies in the Munsiffs court when I filed
the suit in that court, showing that she was
holding patta to the extent of half. I have shown
myself as pattadar to the extent of half of the
entire extent of the southern side. ....... My
father literate. I can identify the signature of
my father. The signatures shown to me in Ex.
A-1 signatures in all the sheets (6) are that of
my father.”
(Emphasis supplied)
4.11. The suit filed by plaintiff-Lasum Bai came to
5
be decreed by the District Judge, Adilabad vide
th
judgment and decree dated 15 November, 1994 with
the following pertinent findings: -

i. That the plaintiff-Lasum Bai had
established her case that M. Rajanna had

5
Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”.
9
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



executed the Will (Ext.-A1) in a sound
disposing state of mind.
ii. That in absence of any evidence to the
contrary, the admission of the first
defendant that M. Rajanna had allowed
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to cultivate their
respective portions of land, distinct from
each other and that they had been in
exclusive possession over their respective
portions of land and made it clear that the
family arrangement pleaded by the
plaintiff-Lasum Bai was true.
4.12. With these conclusions arrived at after
thorough appraisal of evidence on record, the trial
Court proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the
plaintiff-Lasum Bai and granted a declaration that
the plaintiff-Lasum Bai was the true owner and had
exclusive title over the suit schedule properties
mentioned in the plaint and also granted her
permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 1 and
2 i.e., defendant-Muthaiah and his sister, Rajamma.
4.13. Being aggrieved, the defendant-Muthaiah,
along with his sister, Rajamma preferred an appeal
10
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



being Appeal Suit No. 178 of 1995 in the High Court
6
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad . The
rd
High Court, vide judgment dated 23 January, 2014
allowed the appeal in part and set aside the trial
th
Court’s judgment and decree dated 15 November,
1994 holding that the defendant-Muthaiah was
th
entitled to 3/4 share and the plaintiff-Lasum Bai
th
was entitled to only 1/4 share in the suit schedule
properties upon death of M. Rajanna and Rajamma
and restricted the plaintiff-Lasum Bai’s entitlement
only to that extent. Vide the impugned judgment, the
High Court determined the rights of the parties in the
following terms: -
“ 31) In the result, the appeal is allowed in part
to the extent, while setting aside the trial Court's
decree and judgment in granting declaration of
title and injunction for entire plaint schedule
properties of the present suit in favour of the
st
plaintiff (appeal-1 respondent Lasumbai);
however, by holding that as those are part of the
st
joint family properties of 1 defendant who got
th th
3/4 share and the plaintiff got 1/4 share from
death of Rajanna and from death of Rajamma
respectively, the plaintiff's entitlement is only to
that extent so to declare her title with no relief of
injunction since undivided, thus by granting
preliminary decree for partition for said shares of
st
plaintiff and 1 defendant respectively, so as to
enable them to apply for final decree for division

6
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
11
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015

4.14. The said judgment of the High Court has been
challenged by plaintiff-Lasum Bai (appellant No. 1)
and appellants Nos. 2-6 being the legal
representatives of the purchaser i.e., Janardhan
Reddy before this Court by way of Civil Appeal No.
5921 of 2015. However, plaintiff-Lasum Bai
th
(appellant No. 1) died on 17 January, 2015 without
any legal representatives. Upon her death, appellants
Nos. 2-6 being the legal representatives of Janardhan
Reddy preferred an application under Order XXII
Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
permission to represent the estate of plaintiff-Lasum
Bai to the extent of 4 acres and 16 guntas i.e., the
portion of plot located in Survey No. 28 of the
Dasnapur Village which was purportedly sold by
12
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



plaintiff-Lasum Bai to Janardhan Reddy vide
nd
registered sale deed dated 22 November, 1994.
4.15. Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 came to be filed
by the legal representatives of defendant-Muthaiah
who have challenged the direction of the High Court
th
granting 1/4 share of the suit scheduled property to
plaintiff-Lasum Bai.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants: -
5. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants being the legal
representatives of Janardhan Reddy and
representing the estate of plaintiff-Lasum Bai,
vehemently and fervently contended that even going
by the genealogy of the parties and assuming that the
Will (Ext.-A1) was not in existence, the plaintiff-
rd
Lasum Bai would get 1/3 share of the properties
owned by M. Rajanna which would be much more
than the area of the disputed property.
5.1. He further urged that the registered Will (Ext.-
A1) has been proved by leading unimpeachable
evidence. The defendant-Muthaiah admitted the
signatures of M. Rajanna on the Will and thus,
13
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



undeniably the plaintiff-Lasum Bai inherited the suit
schedule property under the said Will and the sale
made by her to appellant Nos. 2 to 6 being the legal
representatives of Janardhan Reddy is valid and
cannot be called into question.
5.2. He further submitted that as per the evidence of
the plaintiff-Lasum Bai and the admissions
appearing in the statement of the defendant-
Muthaiah referred to supra , existence of the
registered Will and oral family settlement is well
established.
5.3. The plaintiff sold 2 acres out of her share of 6
acres and 16 guntas land in the village Dasnapur to
th
Sanjeeva Reddy by a registered sale deed dated 27
August, 1987. The said sale deed though very much
in knowledge of the defendant-Muthaiah, was never
challenged before any forum. Hence, apparently,
defendant-Muthaiah has acquiesced to the right of
plaintiff-Lasum Bai over the suit schedule properties.
He urged that the High Court clearly fell in error in
interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the
trial Court.
5.4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that
the defendant-Muthaiah had earlier filed suit for
14
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



injunction (Original Suit No. 101 of 1987) against
plaintiff-Lasum Bai wherein he specifically referred to
the sale deed executed in favour of Sanjeeva Reddy
by plaintiff-Lasum Bai and consciously chose not to
assail the said sale deed. Thus, the defendant-
Muthaiah is estopped by law from questioning the
right of plaintiff-Lasum Bai to sell the disputed
property.
On these grounds, learned senior counsel
implored the Court to set aside the impugned
judgment; restore the judgment of the trial Court and
allow Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents: -
6. E-converso , learned counsel appearing for the
respondents vehemently and fervently opposed the
submissions advanced by learned senior counsel for
the appellants. He urged that the unpartitioned land
was owned by Ramanna who expired before 1949.
Thus, all properties owned by Ramanna upon his
death devolved in equal shares upon M. Rajanna and
defendant-Muthaiah being the two male co-
parceners. He submitted that the registered Will
which was executed by M. Rajanna in favour of
15
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



plaintiff-Lasum Bai, defendant-Muthaiah and
Rajamma has no sanctity in the eyes of law because
the said Will was executed by M. Rajanna in the
capacity of the owner of the entire land in question
whereas the fact remains that the land was not the
self-acquired property of the testator i.e., M. Rajanna.
Thus, as per learned counsel, the plaintiff-Lasum Bai
did not gain any legal right whatsoever over the
property under the registered Will.
6.1. He further submitted that the High Court rightly
held that the family settlement could not be acted
upon because the said settlement granted title over
the property in question to the parties and being
unregistered, it could not be admitted in evidence for
any purpose whatsoever.
6.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit
(Original Suit No. 101 of 1987) filed by the defendant-
Muthaiah was decreed and plaintiff-Lasum Bai was
perpetually injuncted from selling the land in
question. The said judgment was never challenged
and has attained finality. Hence, the sale deed in
respect of the disputed property executed by plaintiff-
Lasum Bai in favour of Janardan Reddy has no
sanctity in the eyes of law.
16
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



6.3. He urged that the judgment rendered by the
High Court is based on sound reasoning. The High
Court has adverted to the prevailing facts in detail
and reached to an unimpeachable conclusion that
the plaintiff-Lasum Bai did not gain any right
whatsoever under the disputed Will or the so-called
oral family settlement. Despite the aforesaid findings,
th
the High Court erred in granting 1/4 share to
plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the joint family properties
which is ex facie sustainable in facts and law.
He, thus, implored the Court to dismiss the
appeal jointly filed by plaintiff-Lasum Bai and the
legal representatives of Janardhan Reddy and allow
the appeal filed by defendant-Muthaiah thereby
setting aside the judgment of the High Court to the
th
extent that it granted 1/4 share to plaintiff-Lasum
Bai in the joint family properties.
Discussion and Conclusion: -
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and with their assistance perused the impugned
judgment and the material available on record.
8. At the outset, we may note that it is an admitted
position as emerging from the record that after the
death of M. Ramanna, the revenue entries ( Khasra
17
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



Pahunis ) of the land in question were entered in the
name of M. Rajanna. This Court has been apprised
that as per the prevailing revenue laws in the State of
Andhra Pradesh, these entries provide evidence of
ownership over the land. The subject suit was filed
by plaintiff-Lasum Bai specifically basing her claim
th
on the registered Will (Ext.-A1) dated 24 July, 1974
and the oral family settlement.
9. The Will is a registered document. The
defendant-Muthaiah in his evidence, admitted the
signatures as appearing on the said Will (Ext.-A1) to
be that of his father, i.e., M. Rajanna. The Will
distributed the properties in defined proportions
between the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, defendant-
Muthaiah and Rajamma (widowed daughter of M.
Rajanna). There is ample material on record to
establish that M. Rajanna anticipated that the
relations between plaintiff-Lasum Bai and defendant-
Muthaiah 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-Lasum Bai,
while leaving the major share to his son i.e., the
defendant-Muthaiah. The distribution of the
18
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



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. The trial Court
accepted the execution of the Will based on the
evidence led before it. As the Will is a registered
document, the burden would lie on the party who
disputed its existence thereof, who would be
defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it
was not executed in the manner as alleged or that
there were suspicious circumstances which made the
same doubtful. However, the defendant-Muthaiah in
his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing
on the registered Will to be those of his father, M.
Rajanna. He also admitted the fact that the plaintiff-
Lasum Bai 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 M. Rajanna made a fair distribution of
his tangible assets amongst his legal heirs by
th
executing the Will dated 24 July, 1974 and so also
the oral family settlement. We are of the view that the
evidence available on record fortifies the existence
19
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



and persuasive nature of the oral family settlement
which is countenanced by the factum of the
possession of the suit schedule properties including
the disputed property, which was admittedly with the
plaintiff-Lasum Bai and subsequently the purchaser
i.e., Janardhan Reddy.
10. The genuineness of the Will is also beyond
doubt because it not only confers the right and title
over a part of the land owned by the Testator, M.
Rajanna to the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, but it also grants
a lion’s share of the property to the defendant-
Muthaiah. Had it been the intention of M. Rajanna to
deprive the defendant-Muthaiah of the land or if the
Will had been manipulated, then the defendant-
Muthaiah could have been left out completely from
gaining any benefits under the Will.
11. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we
are of the firm view that the trial Court was fully
justified in decreeing the suit for declaration and
permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-Lasum Bai
and granting her absolute rights over the suit
schedule properties including the disputed property
admeasuring 4 acres and 16 guntas which was sold
to Janardhan Reddy vide registered sale deed dated
20
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015



nd
22 November, 1994. 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.
12.
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. Resultantly, the impugned
rd
judgment dated 23 January, 2014, rendered by the
High Court does not stand to scrutiny and the same
is hereby reversed and set aside. The judgment and
th
decree dated 15 November, 1994 rendered by the
trial Court is, consequently, restored.
13. Accordingly, Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015 is
allowed and the Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)

...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 21, 2025.
21
C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015