The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

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

Similar News