2003 (12) TMI 582 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Will was genuine has to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding? Whether the grant was absolute or it was subject to any condition or stipulation? Held that - Appeal allowed. It shall be for the respondents to establish the genuiness of the Will in the manner recognized by law in the appropriate proceeding, and thereafter seek for possession including the claim for any mesne profits in such proceedings. It shall not be construed that our interference in the matter is on the basis of any expression of opinion about merits of the original dispute i.e. relating to genuiness of the Will but made only for the limited purpose of setting aside the illegal orders of the Courts below as to right to possession. As and when, an appropriate suit is filed the competent Court shall be at liberty to determine the question of title to the disputed half share of the respondents on its own merits, on the basis of materials and evidence that may be let in during trial, uninfluenced by the observations made on such claims in the orders set aside, as well as those made in this order.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of District Court to adjudicate the genuineness of the Will in summary proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
2. Validity of the Will propounded by the respondent.
3. Possession of the ancestral property.
4. High Court's refusal to interfere with the District Court's order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of District Court to adjudicate the genuineness of the Will in summary proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925:
The primary contention was whether the District Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the genuineness of the Will in summary proceedings under Sections 192 to 195 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The proceedings under Part VII of the Act are summary in nature and confined only to the issue of possession. The petitioner argued that the District Court, exercising summary powers, had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of the Will. The High Court, however, overlooked this and erroneously held that the jurisdiction was discretionary and that the consent of the parties conferred jurisdiction on the District Court. The Supreme Court clarified that while dealing with an application under Section 192, some consideration of the genuineness of the Will is necessary but it cannot be conclusive and detailed. The Court emphasized that the genuineness of the Will must be established in a regular suit, not in summary proceedings.

2. Validity of the Will propounded by the respondent:
The respondent claimed possession based on a joint Will executed by him and his wife, Mrs. Rani Sidhan, asserting that he was the sole heir of her assets. The Supreme Court noted that the District Court's detailed adjudication on the genuineness of the Will in summary proceedings was improper. The Court reiterated that the genuineness of the Will should be established through a regular suit, as previously directed by various courts including the High Court and the Supreme Court.

3. Possession of the ancestral property:
The petitioner contended that she was the legal heir to the property under Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that the respondent, Dr. T.C. Sidhan, had no right to the property. The District Court had ordered the possession of the property to be handed over to the respondent based on the alleged Will. The Supreme Court found this to be a serious error, as the petitioner's title to half of the property was beyond controversy. The Court directed that possession should be delivered to the petitioner, with conditions stipulated for the deposit of mesne profits in court pending final adjudication.

4. High Court's refusal to interfere with the District Court's order:
The High Court had dismissed the revision petition, holding that the jurisdiction exercised by the District Court was discretionary. The Supreme Court found this to be a misdirection and a serious error, as it placed a premium on grave illegality. The Court emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised within the limits of reason and justice, not arbitrarily. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the District Court and the High Court, directing possession to be delivered to the petitioner and allowing the respondents to establish the genuineness of the Will in appropriate proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the District Court and the High Court, and directed that possession of the property be delivered to the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the genuineness of the Will must be established in a regular suit, and the observations made in the order should not influence the determination of title in future proceedings. The appeal was allowed with parties bearing their respective costs.

← Previous Next →