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 Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Stringent Proof Required for Will and Partition Claims: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India overturned a High Court ruling in the case of Rajendhiran v. Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors, reinforcing the stringent standards required for proving oral partition and the execution of wills in property disputes.

The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, delivered the verdict on January 3, 2024, setting aside the High Court's decision which had earlier ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The apex court's decision reaffirmed the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, both of which had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration that a sale deed was null and void and an injunction.

In their judgment, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions in property disputes. "Both the plaintiffs had pleaded that Arunachalam had executed a will on 16.07.2003 but they failed to prove the said will deed in accordance to the statutory provisions contained in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956," the Court observed, emphasizing the lack of substantial proof provided by the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court also highlighted the failure of the High Court to adequately consider the evidence presented. "The High Court failed to consider the oral as also the documentary evidence," the judgment noted, critiquing the High Court's reliance on unrelated documents to conclude that an oral partition had occurred.

This ruling is a reminder of the judicial emphasis on the necessity of concrete evidence in claims related to property rights, particularly in cases involving wills and partitions. The decision has significant implications for future property dispute litigations, underscoring the rigorous standards required for proving claims in such cases.

Date of Decision: January 03, 2024

RAJENDHIRAN VS MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News