Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Mutation of Property on Basis of Will Requires Civil Court Validation, Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The court emphasizes the necessity of resolving disputed facts and obtaining a civil court declaration for will-based property mutations.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, presided over by Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, has dismissed a writ petition seeking the mutation of property based on a will. The court underscored the importance of resolving disputed facts and obtaining a declaration from a civil court to validate the will, thereby ensuring the proper transfer of property rights.

Varun Kumar Sonkar, a 25-year-old businessman from Jabalpur, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He sought the court's intervention to have his name mutated in the revenue records for a property bequeathed to his late uncle, Dharmendra Sonkar, through a will executed by Phagulal Patel on June 28, 2012. Sonkar argued that since his uncle had died issueless, he was entitled to inherit the property based on the will. However, the petitioner’s father, Champalal Sonkar, is still alive, and no document of conveyance from Dharmendra Sonkar to the petitioner existed.

Disputed Facts:

The court highlighted two primary disputed facts:

The authenticity of the will executed by Phagulal Patel in favor of Dharmendra Sonkar.

Whether Dharmendra Sonkar died issueless.

Justice Ahluwalia noted that these disputes are substantial and require thorough examination by a competent civil court rather than a summary procedure.

Justice Ahluwalia referenced several key judgments that establish the legal framework for validating a will. He cited the Supreme Court's decisions, emphasizing that mutation of property based on a will does not confer title or ownership. Instead, such entries are meant for fiscal purposes only. The court cited the Supreme Court case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reinforcing that "mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title"​​.

Justice Ahluwalia remarked, "The propounder of a will must prove the document in accordance with law. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act prescribe the requirements and nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a court of law." He further asserted, "The revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the genuineness of a will; this can only be done by a civil court."

The court meticulously discussed the principles of evaluating the validity of a will, pointing out that the party propounding the will must demonstrate its authenticity and address any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. The judgment reiterated that the mere presence of a will does not automatically entitle the beneficiary to property rights without proper legal validation.

The High Court's dismissal of the petition underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring proper legal processes are followed in property disputes involving wills. By affirming the necessity of civil court declarations for will validation, the judgment reinforces the legal framework governing property transfers. This decision is expected to have significant implications for future cases, ensuring that property rights are not conferred based solely on revenue record entries without thorough judicial scrutiny.

 

Date of Decision: May 22, 2024

Varun Kumar Sonkar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Similar News