Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Admission of Will: No Categorical Admission Found – Matter Remitted Back: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court of India delivered a ruling on October 10, 2023, addressing a contentious issue of admission of a Will in a partition suit. The judgment, arising from a partition suit (O.S. No. 701/2021), brings clarity to the legal landscape concerning the existence and validity of a Will.

The core contention revolved around the Will dated 18.11.1999, with Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 asserting its existence, while Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 and 2 categorically denied it. The plaintiffs and the latter defendants contended that the Will was neither valid nor binding, leading to a dispute over the division of the suit property.

The key takeaway from the judgment is encapsulated in the headnotes: "Admission of Will: 'No Categorical Admission Found.'" The court's meticulous analysis revealed that there was no unequivocal and absolute admission regarding the Will. While Defendant No. 4's statements were viewed as statements in continuation of their pleadings, they did not amount to an admission of the plaintiffs' case. This finding led to the conclusion that the suit raised significant triable issues both in fact and law.

The judgment emphasized critical questions surrounding testamentary succession versus intestate succession and the validity of the contested Will. It underscored the need for comprehensive adjudication in partition suits, aiming to avoid protracted litigation and promote the timely resolution of disputes.

Notably, the bench also addressed the authorization for the sale of the suit property, considering the age of the parties involved, and laid down specific directions for the sale process. The court authorized the sale without the necessity of a Preliminary Decree under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893, and delineated the roles and responsibilities of the Local Commissioner in charge of the sale.

The Local Commissioner's fees were fixed at Rs. 5,00,000/- with provisions for apportionment among the parties. The judgment stressed the importance of the parties' cooperation in facilitating the sale and the speedy resolution of the matter.

The division bench, cognizant of the age of the contesting parties, urged the Learned Single Judge, who would now preside over the case on remand, to expedite the proceedings and complete the trial within four months from the receipt of the judgment.

In a final note, the judgment declared the impugned judgments, rendered on admission, as erroneous and set them aside. The matter was remitted to the Learned Single Judge for framing issues and conducting a fair trial, emphasizing the need for comprehensive adjudication in partition suits.

While this judgment provides clarity on the admission of a Will in a partition suit, it also underscores the importance of timely resolution and comprehensive adjudication in complex legal disputes.

The parties involved are now poised to proceed with the trial, aiming for a just and equitable resolution of their claims and counterclaims. This landmark decision by the Supreme Court sets a significant precedent in the realm of partition suits and the admission of Wills.

Date of Decision: October 10, 2023

VIKRANT KAPILA AND ANOTHER vs PANKAJA PANDA AND OTHERS 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/10-Oct-2023-VIKRANT-KAPILA-Vs-Pankaja.pdf"]

Latest Legal News