Facts
The plaintiff, grandson of Late Sh. Jagan Nath Prasad Tewari (J.P. Tewari), filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts regarding four properties.
Source reference: p.3-4The plaintiff alleged that J.P. Tewari purchased these properties using funds from the sale of ancestral Zamindar lands in Mainpuri, U.P., thereby making them Joint Hindu Family (HUF) properties.
Source reference: p.4The plaintiff claimed a 1/3rd share (initially 1/4th) following the death of his father and grandmother.
Source reference: p.4, 7The defendants (sons of J.P. Tewari) denied the existence of an HUF, asserting the properties were self-acquired and that J.P. Tewari had executed a registered Will dated 13.02.1980.
Source reference: p.6Procedurally, the suit moved from the High Court to the District Court and back due to changes in pecuniary jurisdiction and amendments to the plaint.
Source reference: p.2-3Issues
1. Whether the suit properties were Joint Hindu Family properties or self-acquired properties of Late Sh. J.P. Tewari?
Source reference: p.13 / para. 37-392. Whether Late Sh. J.P. Tewari duly executed a valid registered Will dated 13.02.1980?
Source reference: p.21 / para. 623. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition and rendition of accounts?
Source reference: p.12, 36 / para. 36, 1234. Whether the Relinquishment Deed dated 11.12.1989 executed by Smt. Rani Tewari was valid?
Source reference: p.31 / para. 100Law Applied
The court applied the principles governing the creation of HUF post-1956 as established in Sunny (Minor) v. Sh. Raj Singh and Surender Kumar Khurana v. Tilak Raj Khurana, which require specific pleadings on when a property was thrown into a common hotchpotch.
Source reference: p.14-16Regarding the proof of Wills, the court applied Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting that if attesting witnesses are deceased, handwriting must be proved.
Source reference: p.27-28The court also relied on Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh regarding the burden of proof under Sections 101-102 of the Evidence Act.
Source reference: p.20Reliance was placed on Kanta Yadav v. Om Prakash Yadav stating probate is not mandatory in Delhi.
Source reference: p.26Reasoning
The court found the plaintiff failed to provide specific pleadings or evidence regarding the existence of an HUF prior to 1956 or the subsequent "throwing into a common hotchpotch" of the properties.
Source reference: p.17Mere "bald averments" that ancestral funds were used did not suffice.
Source reference: p.17Conversely, the defendants successfully proved the Will dated 13.02.1980 through the testimony of the son of a deceased attesting witness (DW-8), identification of signatures by a handwriting expert (DW-7), and the presence of official records from the Sub-Registrar (DW-4).
Source reference: p.22-23, 28The court dismissed the plaintiff's "suspicious circumstances" argument, noting that excluding a spouse or providing small payments (Rs. 2,000) by the plaintiff's father did not invalidate the testator's clear testamentary intent to divide properties among his sons.
Source reference: p.30-31, 38The registered Relinquishment Deed was also upheld as a valid public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act.
Source reference: p.39Holding
The court Decided all major issues in favor of the defendants.
It held that the plaintiff failed to establish the HUF status of the properties and that the Will dated 13.02.1980 was validly executed and proved.
Source reference: p.31The Pitampura property would devolve according to the Will and not by partition.
Source reference: p.38The suit for partition and rendition of accounts was dismissed in its entirety. No order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p.38-39Original Court PDF
Ashish TewarivsG.P.Tewari And Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in