Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

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