2013 (1) TMI 1062 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the will executed by Shiv Singh.
2. Nature of the suit land (ancestral or self-acquired).
3. Maintainability of the appeal by Defendant No. 5 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Legal rights of Defendant No. 5 as an aggrieved party.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Will Executed by Shiv Singh:
The Plaintiff, Sarabjit Singh, challenged the will executed in favor of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, alleging it was forged and not executed voluntarily by Shiv Singh. The trial court found that Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will and declared it null and void. However, the appellate court reversed this finding, holding that the will dated 6.7.1989 was validly executed and the trial court's finding was unsustainable.

2. Nature of the Suit Land (Ancestral or Self-Acquired):
The Plaintiff claimed that the suit land was ancestral coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family property, which Shiv Singh, as the Karta, had no right to bequeath solely to Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The trial court agreed with this view, but the appellate court concluded that the property was self-acquired by Shiv Singh, making him competent to alienate it as he wished.

3. Maintainability of the Appeal by Defendant No. 5 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Defendant No. 5 on the grounds that he was not an aggrieved party under Section 100 of the Code. The High Court relied on precedents like Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. and Banarsi and Ors. v. Ram Phal, which distinguish between the inherent right to file a suit and the limitations in maintaining an appeal. The High Court held that the Defendant No. 5 could not appeal against a mere finding as the Code does not provide for such an appeal.

4. Legal Rights of Defendant No. 5 as an Aggrieved Party:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its interpretation. It emphasized that Sections 96 and 100 of the Code do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal but allow any person prejudicially affected by a judgment and decree to do so. The Supreme Court cited various precedents, including Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. Golcha Properties Private Ltd. and State of Punjab v. Amar Singh and Anr., to support the view that a person not a party to the suit may appeal if prejudicially affected by the judgment. The Court concluded that Defendant No. 5, who supported the Plaintiff's case and was prejudicially affected by the appellate court's decree, had the right to appeal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remitted the matter to the High Court to decide the appeal within six months. The Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and directed that the parties bear their respective costs.