Stringent Proof Required for Will and Partition Claims: Supreme Court

Share:
ultra review complaint guidelines land age property Acquisition Developers firm Bail Marriage Property Town Eyewitness child Custody burden Reasonable LPG evidence Selection Police Jurisdiction Evidence FIR eyewitness Certificate Land Judges Sex property Lands Evidence Jail Lands Motor Accident Evidence Judgment property Constitutional Child Murder employee SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1987 bail evidence claims pay diploma vidhan insurance magistrate 498 guilty 65 notice village ews guidelines Date of Decision: October 17, 2023 MRS. KALYANI RAJAN  vs INDRAPRASTHA medical APOLLO HOSPITAL  & ORS.          admission employers investigation judicial probationary mca tax kill bail liberty Police bail divorce certificate rape proper bail sexual violence acquittal police sale workers jurisdiction

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.

    

Download Judgment

Share: