9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the Property 2. Validity and Execution of the Will dated 15-12-1949 3. Validity and Execution of the Will dated 13-11-1956 4. Creation of a Public Trust 5. Procedural and Technical Arguments Detailed Analysis: 1. Ownership of the Property The court established that Pyare Lal had two sons, Panna Lal and Ajudhya Prasad. Panna Lal died issueless in 1929, and according to the order of succession under the old Hindu law, Ajudhya Prasad inherited the property. The claim that Panna Lal had adopted Mool Chand was not substantiated with evidence. Consequently, Ajudhya Prasad was deemed the rightful owner of the property. 2. Validity and Execution of the Will dated 15-12-1949 The plaintiffs contended that Ajudhya Prasad executed a will on 15-12-1949, creating a trust. The court noted that the document, Ex.P/22, was registered and the scribe, Dayashankar Shukla, confirmed its authenticity. Despite one attesting witness, Nemi Chandra Jain, denying knowledge of the will, the court relied on Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows the use of other evidence when an attesting witness denies execution. The court concluded that the will dated 15-12-1949 was validly executed and proved. 3. Validity and Execution of the Will dated 13-11-1956 The defendant claimed that a subsequent will dated 13-11-1956 revoked the earlier will. However, the court found several suspicious circumstances surrounding this will. The attesting witness, Onkar Nath Choubey, provided inconsistent testimony, and the involvement of Laturi Lal, who had a vested interest, further cast doubt on the document's authenticity. The court concluded that the will dated 13-11-1956 was not proved in accordance with law and was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. 4. Creation of a Public Trust The court examined whether the document dated 15-12-1949 created a trust. It was determined that while the document expressed Ajudhya Prasad's intention to construct a dharamshala, it did not divest him of ownership or transfer the property to trustees during his lifetime. Therefore, the document was deemed a will rather than a trust deed. Upon Ajudhya Prasad's death, the will created a public trust named "Dharmshala Panna Lal Ajudhya Prasad." 5. Procedural and Technical Arguments The defendant argued that the suit should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and lack of notice under Section 80 of the CPC. The court rejected these arguments, noting that the State and the Registrar did not contest the suit, and the objection was not raised at earlier stages. The court also addressed the applicability of the Indian Succession Act, concluding that the will dated 15-12-1949 must be in writing and attested by at least two witnesses as required by Section 63 of the Act. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the lower court, as well as the order of the Registrar, were set aside. The court declared that the disputed property is a public trust named "Dharmshala Panna Lal Ajudhya Prasad." The parties were left to bear their own costs.
|
