Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 152
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9035 OF 2013
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 33563 of 2011)
Savitri Bai and another … Appellants
Versus
Savitri Bai … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Civil Suit No. 22A/80 was dismissed by the learned Additional
Civil Judge, Class-1, Mudwara Katni, vide judgment dated 21.12.1992.
The same stood confirmed in appeal by the learned First Additional
District Judge, Mudwara Katni, when Civil Appeal No. 1A/1993 filed by
the plaintiff was dismissed on 14.03.1997. However, Second Appeal
No. 395 of 1997 filed by the said plaintiff was allowed by the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on 28.07.2011. Thereby, the High Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Vijay Kumar
Date: 2024.02.29
16:33:59 IST
Reason:
declared that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit house property under
the registered Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 and decreed its possession in
1
her favour. Further, the High Court declared the Will dated 23.03.1977
executed in favour of Meghraj, the second defendant, null and void.
Aggrieved thereby, the defendants in the suit filed this appeal.
2. By order dated 28.11.2011, this Court directed both parties to
maintain status quo prevailing as on that date. On 30.09.2013, the interim
order was directed to continue till the final disposal of the appeal.
3. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit.
4. Late Babulal Kahar had two wives. Savitri Bai, the first
defendant, was born to him through his first wife. Suhadra Bai, the
second wife, gave birth to four sons, viz ., Madanlal, Ratanlal, Ramesh
Kumar and Suresh Kumar; and two daughters, Asha Bai and Baby.
Babulal died on 06.02.1978. Suhadra Bai and her progeny were initially
arrayed as respondents in this appeal but their names were deleted
thereafter. They were not made parties to the suit or the first appeal.
5. The case of Savitri Bai, the plaintiff, was that she purchased
the suit property situated in Ishwaripura Ward, Katni, under registered
Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 from Suhadra Bai, the widow of Babulal;
Madanlal, Ratanlal, Ramesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Asha Bai and Baby,
the children of Babulal and Suhadra Bai; and Savitri Bai, the first
defendant, being Babulal’s daughter through his first wife. The plaintiff
2
claimed that she was delivered possession of the suit property after
execution of the sale deed but the first defendant dispossessed her on
25.01.1979 and took forcible possession thereof. She further claimed that
the first defendant failed to handover vacant possession despite receiving
notices dated 25.07.1979 and 14.09.1979. She then filed the subject suit
for possession of the suit property. After the first defendant filed her
written statement, the plaintiff amended her suit prayer and also sought a
declaration that the Will Deed dated 23.03.1977 executed by Babulal in
favour of Meghraj, the son of the first defendant, shown as the second
defendant in the suit, was illegal and fabricated.
6. In her written statement, the first defendant claimed that she
neither sold the suit property to the plaintiff nor did she deliver possession
thereof to her. According to her, she had been living at Damoh with her
family but, after her husband passed away on 09.05.1976, her father
brought her and her children to Katni and allowed her to live in the suit
property. Thereafter, her father executed a Will, bequeathing the suit
property to Meghraj, his grandson, i.e., the second defendant. She
asserted that Suhadra Bai, Madanlal, Ratanlal, etc., had sold some of the
properties that fell to their share in favour of their tenants and she was
told that, as she too was the daughter of Babulal, her signature was also
3
necessary. She stated that, as she was not educated and had faith in
them, she signed sale deeds again and again. She, however, asserted
that she never received any consideration. After receiving the plaintiff’s
notices, she claimed that she clarified that she had not sold the suit
property and was assured by the plaintiff’s husband that he would take
back the consideration from the others and leave her property.
7. The following issues, verbatim, were framed for trial: -
‘1A Whether plaintiff after purchasing the disputed house from
defendant and other owners on 10.01.1979 by registered sale
deed, had got its possession?
1B Whether sellers were having right and title to sell?
2. Whether defendant took illegal possession over the
disputed house on 25.01.1979?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get vacant possession of the
house and compensation @ Rs. 1/- per day
4.A Whether the suit is not properly valued?
4.B Whether sufficient court fee has not been paid?
5. Relief and costs
6. Whether late Babulal has executed will deed of the disputed
house in the year 1977 in favor of Meghraj, son of defendant, if
yes then effect?
7. Whether suit of plaintiff is time barred, if yes its effect?’
8. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1. She also examined
PWs 2 & 3 in support of her case. The first defendant deposed as DW1
and DWs 2 to 4 were examined in relation to the Will dated 23.03.1977.
4
9. The Trial Court held in favour of the first defendant on issues
1A, 1B, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and dismissed the suit. It found that the plaintiff was
not consistent in her stand as to the taking of possession of the suit
property and there were contradictions between her pleadings and her
deposition on oath. In her cross-examination, the plaintiff had stated that
she was the tenant of Babulal in the suit property. The Trial Court
observed that, if this was true, the question of the plaintiff being delivered
possession after the sale deed did not arise. Other contradictions
between her pleadings and oral evidence were also noted. Munnalal
(PW2) stated that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from
Babulal himself, contrary to the stand of the plaintiff. Motilal (PW3), on the
other hand, stated that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from the
sons of Babulal. The first defendant stated that her father had executed
Will dated 23.03.1977 in favour of her son. L.K. Sampariya, Advocate, the
scribe of the Will, was examined as DW3, while Pyarelal and Babulal, the
attestors of the Will, were examined as DWs 2 & 4. Upon consideration of
this evidence, the Trial Court held that the Will was duly proved and, in
consequence, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, in the
absence of Meghraj, the legatee under the Will, was held invalid. The
Trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit with costs.
5
10. In appeal, the learned First Additional District Judge,
Mudwara Katni, upheld the findings of the Trial Court. The learned Judge
affirmed that the participation of the first defendant in the execution of the
sale deed was of no avail as the suit property belonged to Meghraj, by
virtue of the Will dated 23.03.1977, and he was not a party to the said
sale deed. Holding so, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal.
11. However, in the plaintiff’s second appeal, the High Court
reversed the findings of both the Courts and held in her favour. The High
Court disbelieved the Will dated 23.03.1977 on the ground that the first
defendant would not have affixed her signature in the sale deed at the
mere asking of her step-mother and her sons if it was true. The High
Court was of the opinion that the Will would have been produced earlier
and its mention only in the first defendant’s written statement, filed on
14.11.1980, rendered it suspicious. The High Court, however, did not deal
with the evidence adduced by the scribe and the attestors of the Will,
whereby the Courts below had held it duly proved. It is on this basis that
the High Court concluded that the plaintiff was the rightful owner of the
suit property under the Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979.
12. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff also purchased other
properties that had originally belonged to late Babulal from his family
6
members, i.e., Suhadra Bai and her children. It is stated that several sale
deeds were executed in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant
explained her participation in the execution of all these sale deeds. In her
written statement, she stated that Suhadra Bai, Madanlal and Ratanlal,
who were both majors at that time, wanted to sell some parts of their
property in favour of their tenants and she was told that, as she too was
the daughter of late Babulal, her signatures would be necessary and, not
being educated, she reposed full faith in them and affixed her signatures
in several sale deeds. This aspect was not denied by the plaintiff.
13. In the Will executed by late Babulal in favour of Meghraj, the
second defendant, it was recorded that Babulal brought the first
defendant and her children to Katni after her husband, Shankar Lal, died
in May, 1976, and that he had arranged for their residence in his house
situated in Ishwaripura Ward. It was further recorded by Babulal that he
bequeathed the said house property to his grandson, Meghraj, so that
after his passing all his heirs could live peacefully. The Will details, at
great length, the property bequeathed to Meghraj. It reads as follows:
‘Hence, I am voluntarily bequeathing the sitting room, in municipal
corporation house No. 922 and 922/1 wherein presently Savitri Bai
is living and wherein Jawahar is living and the land which is lying
vacant in front thereof, to Meghraj. After my death apart from
Meghraj nobody else would have right and claim over this
7
property. The rooms given by me are constructed in left hand of
kamani erected on entrance gate of bara. Accordingly, today on
23.03.1977 at Katni I have made signature on this will deed after
reading and understanding before witnesses.’
14. The High Court glossed over this Will, entertaining a doubt as
to its genuineness, only on the ground that it was not produced earlier
and as the first defendant had affixed her signature in the Sale Deed
dated 18.01.1979. The knowledge imputed by the High Court to the first
defendant in relation to the said sale deed was not warranted as it was
her specific case that she had affixed her signature in not only this sale
deed but all the other sale deeds executed by her step-mother and the
others, being under the impression that the same was required as she
was also the daughter of late Babulal. Therefore, no conscious
knowledge could be attributed to her only in relation to the Sale Deed
dated 18.01.1979 and her not speaking of or producing the Will at that
time could not be held against her, as she was under the impression that
she was participating in the sale of her family’s share in the properties, by
way of abundant caution. In effect, the question of her raising the issue of
the Will did not even arise.
15. Further, the High Court failed to appreciate the independent
evidence adduced to prove the said Will. The scribe of the Will was an
8
Advocate. Deposing as PW3, he asserted that he had written the same
upon the instructions of late Babulal. He stated that it was read over to
late Babulal and thereafter, the witnesses and late Babulal affixed their
signatures therein. The depositions of the attestors of the Will also
remained unshaken and clearly evidenced that the same was signed by
late Babulal in their presence and they, in turn, affixed their own
signatures in his presence. Once such evidence was adduced in terms of
Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the mandatory requirements
prescribed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, were
duly satisfied, the Will stood proved in the eye of law (See
1
H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N.Thimmajamma ) and the same ought
not to have been brushed aside lightly. As the Will was duly proved to be
genuine, the participation of the first defendant in the execution of the
Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 thereafter paled into insignificance. The
owner of the property under the Will was Meghraj, the second defendant,
and he was neither a party to the said sale deed nor did his mother affix
her signature therein in the capacity of being his guardian.
16. In consequence, title to the property belonging to Meghraj did
not pass under the said sale deed even though his mother was a
signatory thereto in her own individual capacity. The verdicts of the Trial
1
AIR 1959 SC 443
9
Court and the First Appellate Court holding so were, therefore, perfectly
valid and justified and the High Court erred in overturning the same by
applying its own notions and reversing their findings of fact and law.
17. The civil appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the
judgment dated 28.07.2011 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 395 of 1997 and restoring the judgments
of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Class-1, Mudwara Katni, and the
learned First Additional District Judge, Mudwara Katni, in Civil Suit No.
22A/80 and Civil Appeal No. 1A/1993 respectively.
Parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.
………………………..,J
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………………..,J
(SANJAY KUMAR)
February 29, 2024;
New Delhi.
10