Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1951 (3) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1951 (3) TMI 27 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Validity of the will made by the first defendant in favor of the second defendant.
2. Suit for declaration of will being null and void.
3. Contestation of adoption and limitation.
4. Locus standi of plaintiff to contest the will.
5. Admission of additional evidence under Order XLI, rule 27.
6. Reversal of decision by the District Judge based on additional evidence.
7. High Court's decision on the genuineness of the additional evidence.
8. Interpretation of the custom governing alienation of property.
9. Justification of admitting additional evidence.
10. Consideration of inherent infirmities in the entries of settlement registers.
11. Second appeal grounds under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Analysis:

The case involved a dispute over the validity of a will made by the first defendant in favor of the second defendant, contested by the plaintiff claiming reversionary rights. The plaintiff argued that under customary law, a sonless proprietor cannot will ancestral property when collaterals exist. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Judge allowed additional evidence under Order XLI, rule 27, leading to a reversal of the decision in favor of the plaintiff based on the relinquishment of ancestral property by a third son, Pohlo.

The High Court, however, found the additional evidence inadmissible, highlighting discrepancies indicating forgery. It emphasized that the property in question was non-ancestral, and the suit should have been dismissed under section 7 of Act II of 1920, barring contests of alienation of non-ancestral property. The High Court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the District Judge's admission of additional evidence was unjustified and failed to consider the inherent infirmities in the settlement registers. The Court agreed with the High Court's observations on the suspicious nature of the entries, rendering the findings based on the additional evidence inconclusive.

Ultimately, without the additional evidence, the plaintiff's claim lacked merit as there was no proof of the property's ancestral nature. The District Judge's decree in favor of the plaintiff was deemed erroneous, and the interpretation of the custom governing property alienation was found contrary to Punjab Act II of 1920. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates