CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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