2006 (12) TMI 568 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Validity and execution of the Will by Smt. Anandi Devi.
3. Maintainability of the Special Appeal filed before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.

Summary:

1. Application of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The core question in this appeal was whether the Special Appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 before a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court was maintainable. The appellant argued that Section 100A not only bars the filing of an appeal but would also be attracted even in a pending appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 100A, stating that it deals with two types of cases decided by a Single Judge and that the provision aims to minimize delays in the finality of decisions. The Court noted that Section 100A of the Code has no retrospective effect and does not take away the right of appeal for cases filed before the enactment of the 2002 Act.

2. Validity and Execution of the Will by Smt. Anandi Devi:
The appellant contested the validity of the Will executed by Smt. Anandi Devi on the grounds that she was not physically and mentally fit to execute the Will due to her suffering from cancer and being in a critical condition. The District Judge, Ajmer, dismissed the suit, opining that although Respondent No. 1 had proved the execution of the Will, the map annexed thereto was changed after its execution, indicating tampering. A First Appeal was dismissed by a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, who found the execution of the Will doubtful due to discrepancies in the attached map.

3. Maintainability of the Special Appeal:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Special Appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 was maintainable in light of Section 100A. The Court referred to various precedents and concluded that a Letters Patent Appeal filed before the enactment of the 2002 Act would be maintainable. The Court emphasized that the right of appeal is a substantive right and cannot be taken away except by express enactment or necessary intendment. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that Section 100A does not have retrospective effect and does not apply to appeals filed before the 2002 Act came into force.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure does not have retrospective effect and does not bar the maintainability of the Special Appeal filed before the enactment of the 2002 Act. The Court upheld the validity of the Will's execution but noted discrepancies that raised doubts about its authenticity.