Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Supreme Court Validates Will, Dismisses Sale Deed in Property Dispute: Signature in Sale Deed Pales into Insignificance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has restored the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in a contentious property dispute, emphasizing the validity of a Will over a contested Sale Deed.

Legal Point of Judgment: The central legal issue revolved around the ownership of a property in Ishwaripura Ward, Katni. The dispute pitted a registered Sale Deed against a Will. While the plaintiff, Savitri Bai, claimed ownership based on the Sale Deed dated January 18, 1979, the defendant asserted possession through a Will dated March 23, 1977, in favor of Meghraj, son of the first defendant. The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the assessment of these two conflicting documents.

Facts and Issues: The case, originating from Civil Suit No. 22A/80, saw various twists through the judicial hierarchy. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had initially sided with the defendant, recognizing the Will’s validity. However, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversed this decision, favoring the Sale Deed. The Supreme Court’s intervention was sought to resolve this conflict.

Court’s Assessment: The apex court meticulously analyzed the evidence surrounding the Will and the Sale Deed. Justice Sanjay Kumar, delivering the judgment, underscored the significance of the Will, which had been duly proved in compliance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court criticized the High Court’s approach, stating, “The knowledge imputed by the High Court to the first defendant in relation to the said sale deed was not warranted.” The Court observed that the first defendant’s lack of education and her inadvertent signing of multiple sale deeds did not detract from the Will’s legitimacy.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, thereby setting aside the judgment of the High Court and reinstating the decisions of the lower courts. It was held that the property rightfully belonged to Meghraj as per the Will, rendering the Sale Deed ineffective in this context.

Date of Decision: 29th February 2024

SAVITRI BAI AND ANOTHER VS SAVITRI BAI

Similar News