Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Appeal No. 2888 of 2001. Case: Shyam Lal @ Kuldeep Vs Sanjeev Kumar and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited in 14 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 2888 of 2001
CounselFor Appellant: Vivek S. Attri, Anshu Attri, Advs. for Krishna Pal Singh, Adv and For Respondents: Rajesh Gupta, Harpreet Singh, Sumit Sharma, Advs. for G.K. Bansal, Adv.
JudgesDalveer Bhandari and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
IssueIndian Evidence Act - Section 112; Hindu Succession Act - Sections 4 and 30
CitationAIR 2009 SC 3115 , 2009 (3) AWC 2672 (SC) , JT 2009 (8) SC 108 , (2009) 5 MLJ 1195 (SC) , RLW 2010 (1) SC 779 , 2009 (5) SCALE 507 , (2009) 12 SCC 454 , 2009 (5) UJ 2134 (SC)
Judgement DateApril 15, 2009
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

  1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.09.2000 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Regular Second Appeal No.10 of 1998 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan.

  2. The appellant herein, who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that mutation number 1313 dated 20.2.1988 in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2 was illegal, null and void. The plaintiff and defendant nos.3 and 4 are the sons and defendant nos.5 and 6 are the daughters of late Shri Balak Ram. They were joint owners and in possession of the estate of the deceased Balak Ram in equal shares. Balak Ram died on 31.10.1987. After his death, his estate came to be mutated in favour of his grandsons, defendant nos.1 and 2, on the basis of a Will executed on 4.12.1978, vide mutation number 1313 dated 20.02.1988.

  3. According to the plaintiff, the estate was inherited by the deceased Balak Ram from his father Mohar Singh and as such the same was ancestral in his hands. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the deceased Balak Ram's Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) consisted of himself, the plaintiff and the defendants. Late Balak Ram was governed by the Hindu Law and Customs in the matter of alienation and succession whereby he could not bequeath the ancestral property. It was further pleaded that no Will was executed by the deceased Balak Ram during his lifetime. The Will, if any, was forged and fabricated and ultimately the mutation of inheritance sanctioned on 20.2.1988 was illegal, null and void.

  4. The respondents herein, who were defendants in the Trial Court, while resisting the suit admitted that the deceased Balak Ram had inherited the property from his father Mohar Singh. They, however, denied that such property was ancestral in the hands of the deceased. They also denied that the deceased was governed by the customs in the matter of alienation and succession. They pleaded that the deceased Balak Ram on 4.12.1978 was in a sound disposing mind when he had executed a valid Will in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2. The Will was registered on 23.12.1987 in the office of Sub-Registrar.

  5. It was also submitted that Smt. Durgi, wife of deceased Balak Ram, had deserted her husband during her lifetime while he was in service at Chandigarh. She developed illicit relations with one Mehar Singh. The plaintiff and Phanki Ram, defendant no.4 were born to Smt. Durgi from the loins of the said Mehar Singh. The Trial Court framed the following issues:-

    1. Whether the mutation no.1313 dated 20.2.88 is illegal, null and void and not operative against the plaintiff as alleged?

    OPP

    2. Whether the plaintiff and defendant nos.3 and 6 are joint owners in possession of the suit land as alleged?

    OPP

    3. Whether there is a validly executed will in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2 as alleged?

    OPD

    4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?

    OPD

    5. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged?

    OPD

    6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.

    OPD

    7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit as alleged.

    OPD

    8. Whether the suit is within time?

    OPD

    9. Whether the suit is bad for want of better particulars, as alleged?

    OPD

    10. Whether the alleged will in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is the result of fraud etc. as alleged?

    OPP

  6. The Trial Court decided issues nos.1, 2 and 10 against the plaintiff and issues no.3, 7 and 9 against the defendants. Consequent upon such findings, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court on 27.8.1996.

  7. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the said judgment filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Solan who partly allowed the said appeal on 11.9.1997. The plaintiff and defendant no.4 were held to be the sons of deceased Balak Ram. The property in the hands of deceased Balak Ram was held to be ancestral to the extent of his share in the coparcenary property.

  8. Defendant nos.1 to 3 and 6, aggrieved by the said judgment of the District Judge, Solan filed a second appeal before the High Court on the following substantial questions of law:

  9. Whether the relationship, particularly regarding parentage, is required to be proved strictly in consonance with the provisions of Section 50 and 60 of the Indian Evidence Act? Can the evidence of persons who having no special means of knowledge of such relationship be held to be admissible and are not the findings of the lower appellate court unsustainable which are based on such inadmissible evidence?

  10. When it was duly established that Smt. Durgi had illicit relationship with Mehar Singh in whose company she had begotten the plaintiff and defendant no.4, could the learned lower appellate court raise the presumption as envisaged under Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act relating parentage to Shri Balak Ram deceased from whom she severed all the relationship, merely on the ground that there was no legal divorce between Smt. Durga Devi and Shri Balak Ram?

  11. Whether Ext. P-2 was inadmissible in evidence having not been proved in accordance with law and findings based on the same are illegal and unsustainable?

  12. When the learned lower Appellate Court has held the custom to have been abrogated on account of the provisions of Sections 4 and 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, was not the will executed by Shri Balak Ram in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
14 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT