1988 (3) TMI 463 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Declaration of title to suit properties and injunction.
2. Validity of settlement deed and recovery of possession.
3. Challenge of decree by the appellant.
4. Proof of execution of the Will under Section 63(c) of the Succession Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first respondent filed a suit for a declaration of title to the suit properties and injunction against the appellant and other respondents, claiming ownership based on a settlement deed executed by her brother. The appellant resisted, asserting that the settlement deed was not valid and that certain properties were sold to other respondents, who claimed adverse possession.

Issue 2:
The trial court found the settlement deed valid and binding on the appellant, ruling in favor of the first respondent. The lower appellate court upheld this decision, leading to the appellant challenging the decree in a second appeal. The appellant contended that the transmission of title under a Will had not been proven, questioning the execution of the Will by the testator.

Issue 3:
The appellant's argument focused on the proof of execution of the Will under Section 63(c) of the Succession Act. The court examined the evidence of an attestor to determine if the requirements for valid execution were met, emphasizing the necessity of attestation by witnesses as per the law.

Issue 4:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, which mandate attestation by witnesses and acknowledgment by the testator. The evidence of the attestor, P.W. 3, was crucial in establishing the due execution of the Will, as required by law. The court found that P.W. 3's testimony satisfactorily demonstrated the proper execution of the Will, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal and upholding the first respondent's title to the suit properties.

In conclusion, the judgment affirmed the validity of the settlement deed and the first respondent's title to the suit properties based on the proper execution of the Will. The court's detailed analysis of the evidence and legal provisions ensured a thorough examination of the crucial issue of proof of execution, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's challenge and the maintenance of the lower courts' decisions.