Cheque Bounce Cases Should Ordinarily Be Sent To Mediation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Calls For Mediation In NI Act Matters 138 NI Act | Belated Plea Of Forged Signatures Cannot Be Used To Delay Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Handwriting Expert Sections 332 & 333 IPC | Lawful Discharge Of Duty Must Be Proved, Mere Status As Public Servant Not Enough: Allahabad High Court Bus Conductor Accused of Assaulting Traffic Inspectors Custody With Biological Mother Cannot Ordinarily Be Treated As Illegal Detention: Delhi High Court Refuses Habeas Corpus For Return Of Child To Canada Foreign Custody Orders Must Yield To Welfare Of Child: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enforce Canadian Return Order Through Habeas Corpus Possible Criminal Racket Luring Young Girls Through Self-Proclaimed Peers And Tantriks Must Be Examined: J&K High Court Orders Wider Judicial Scrutiny Nomenclature Cannot Determine Constitutional Entitlement: Supreme Court Strikes Down Exclusion Of ‘Academic Arrangement’ Employees From Regularisation Testimony Of Related Witnesses Cannot Be Discarded Merely For Relationship: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction 149 IPC | Presence In Unlawful Assembly Is Enough For Murder Liability”: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Directly Recruited Engineers Entitled To Seniority From Date Of Initial Appointment Including Training Period: Supreme Court Section 32 Evidence Act | If There Is Even An Iota Of Suspicion, Dying Declaration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Framing A Case On Public Perceptions And Personal Predilections Ends Up In A Mess: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In Alleged Parricide Arson Case When Oppression Petition Is Pending, Courts Must Ensure The Subject Matter Does Not Disappear Before Adjudication: Supreme Court Orders Status Quo In ₹1000 Crore Redevelopment Dispute Parties Cannot Participate In Arbitration And Later Challenge The Process Only After An Unfavourable Outcome : Supreme Court ICSID Clause Is Only A Fail-Safe Mechanism, Not A Restriction: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Tribunal’s Constitution In MCGM Dispute Passive Euthanasia | 'Right To Die With Dignity Is An Intrinsic Facet Of Article 21': Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal Of Life Support Medical Board Must Record Reasons Before Denying Disability Pension To Armed Forces Personnel: Kerala High Court Grants Disability Pension To Air Force Corporal 138 NI Act | Directors Cannot Be Prosecuted If Company Is Not Made Accused: Allahabad High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Cases Broad Daylight Removal of Goods by Known Creditors Is Not Theft: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Shopkeeper’s Insurance Claim Reservation Cannot Freeze Private Land Forever – Lapse Under Section 127 MRTP Act Operates Automatically: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Transfer On Marriage Cannot Defeat Helper’s First Right To Promotion: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Anganwadi Helper’s Promotion Where Accusations Are Prima Facie True, Statutory Bar Under Section 43D(5) UAPA Operates; Bail Cannot Be Granted: Jharkhand High Court Bomb Hurled At Head Of Victim Shows Clear Intention To Kill: Kerala High Court Upholds Life Sentence In Kannur Political Murder Case Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment

Civil Courts Have the Last Word in Cancelling Fraudulent Wills, Rules Allahabad High Court

27 August 2024 3:23 PM

By: sayum


The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has upheld the cancellation of a registered will alleged to have been executed under fraudulent circumstances, affirming the decisions of both the trial court and the first appellate court. The judgment, delivered by Justice Kshitij Shailendra, reinforces the jurisdiction of civil courts in cases involving the cancellation of wills, even when such disputes concern agricultural land.

The case involved a dispute over a will allegedly executed by Harswaroop, who had two sons, Ram Autar (the plaintiff) and Mangoo (defendant no. 2). The plaintiff, Ram Autar, challenged a will that purportedly bequeathed agricultural land to the wife of Mangoo, defendant no. 1. The plaintiff argued that the will was obtained fraudulently when Harswaroop was seriously ill, and without the plaintiff’s knowledge. The defendants, however, contended that the will was executed freely by Harswaroop and had already been registered and entered into the revenue records.

The primary legal question revolved around whether the suit for cancellation of the will could be maintained in a civil court, given that it pertained to agricultural land, which is generally under the jurisdiction of revenue courts as per Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The appellants argued that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved agricultural land and the plaintiff was not recorded in the revenue records.

The High Court, however, reaffirmed that the civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction to cancel void or voidable instruments, such as wills, under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court emphasized that the existence of such documents, if left unchallenged, could cause serious harm to the rightful heirs. It was noted that the plaintiff sought cancellation of the will to remove a cloud on his title, and this relief could only be granted by a civil court.

The trial and appellate courts found that the will in question was executed under suspicious circumstances and was likely a result of fraud. The High Court upheld these findings, noting that the original will was neither produced in court nor proved according to legal requirements. The court concluded that the will had been fabricated to deprive the plaintiff of his rightful share of the property.

The court analyzed whether the bar under Section 331 of the Act was applicable. It held that while the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is a special law governing agricultural land, it does not oust the jurisdiction of civil courts in cases involving the cancellation of void or voidable instruments like wills. The court highlighted that the main relief sought by the plaintiff was the cancellation of the will, a relief that the revenue courts cannot grant.

The High Court’s judgment drew extensively from precedent, particularly the decisions in Ram Padarath v. Second Additional District Judge and Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad, which established that civil courts retain jurisdiction in matters involving the cancellation of instruments, even when these relate to agricultural land. The court distinguished the present case from earlier rulings that were cited by the appellants, noting that the plaintiffs in those cases either sought declarations of title or were not recorded tenure holders.

Justice Kshitij Shailendra remarked, “The civil court’s jurisdiction to cancel a void or voidable document is not ousted by the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Such suits, which seek to remove a cloud on the title by invalidating fraudulent instruments, lie squarely within the civil court’s domain.”

The Allahabad High Court’s decision underscores the authority of civil courts in handling cases involving the cancellation of wills, even when these disputes concern agricultural land. By affirming the lower courts’ findings, the judgment provides clarity on the interplay between civil and revenue court jurisdictions, particularly in matters involving voidable instruments. This ruling is expected to influence future cases where similar jurisdictional challenges are raised.

Date of Decision: 21 August 2024

Mangoo Singh And Ors. Vs. Ram Autar

Latest Legal News