Criminal Appeal No. 1600 of 2009, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4258 of 2007. Case: Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibemma Devi Vs Yumnam Joykumar Singh and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 1600 of 2009, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4258 of 2007 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Hijam N.K. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ashok Kumar Sharma, Lenis S. Hijam and Rahul Joshi, Advs and For Respondents: E.C. Agrawala and Gourab Banerji, Sr. Advs., Gautam Jha, A. Mohendro Singh, Amit Pawan, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Anil Kumar Pandey and Ashok Kumar Singh, Advs. |
| Judges | Arijit Pasayat, V.S. Sirpurkar and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 |
| Citation | JT 2009 (4) SC 307 , RLW 2009 (2) SC 1052 , 2009 (3) SCALE 571 , (2009) 4 SCC 780 , 2009 (2) AWC 1442 (SC) |
| Judgement Date | March 06, 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Arijit Pasayat, J.
-
Leave granted.
-
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court in the First Appeal by the respondents. Before the High Court challenge was to the order passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Manipur East, Imphal, in Original (Probate) Petition No. 14/92/19 of 2003.
-
Background facts as noted by the High Court are as follows:
Shri Yumnam Joykumar Singh, Smt. Yumnam Ningol Khumanthem Ongbi Bijanbala and Smt. Yumnam Ningol Binodini Dcvi, who are the respondents, are the son and daughters of late Yumnam Gouramani Singh. Smt. Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi, who is the appellant in this appeal, is the widow of late Yumnam Mani Singh, son of the said late Yumnam Gouramani Singh, Smt. Yumnam Ningol Harijabam Ongbi Binodkumari Devi, who is the respondent No.2 in this appeal, is a daughter of late Gouramani respondent. Smt. Loitongbam Ningol Yumnam Ongbi Ibeyaima Devi, Yumnam Raynold Singh and Kumari Yumnam Rina alias Riya Devi, are widow, son and daughter respectively of late Yumnam Birmani Singh, son of the said late Yumnam Gouramani Singh. Smt. Yumnam Ongbi Lalitabi Devi, is the widow of the said late Yumnam Gouramani Singh. Shri R.K. Barunisana Singh, who is the proforma respondent in the appeal, is the husband of Binodini. Appellant filed an application alleging that her father in-law Yumnam Gouramani Singh duly executed his last will on 13-8-86 in accordance with law in presence of two attesting witnesses bequeathing the plot of land under C.S. Dag No. 16/2720 measuring 053 acres of Patta No. 304 of Unit A-1, Imphal Municipality at Thangal Bazar along with building standing thereon in her favour. In this application, the appellant prayed for granting letters of administration with the Will annexed in her favour.
The appellant before the High Court and respondent Nos. 6, 7 and proforma respondent No.8 opposed the application by filing a written statement wherein they denied the alleged due execution of the will. It was submitted that there was no execution of a will much less in accordance with law. It was also stated that on the alleged date of execution of the will i.e. 13.8.1986, the said Yumnam Gouramani Singh was staying in U.P. and not in Imphal. It was also alleged that there were suspicious circumstances which ought to be considered before the will could be accepted as genuine. It is to be noted that in the proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge the following three issues were framed.
(1) Whether late Yumnam Gouramani Singh left behind a Will dated 13.8.1986 bequeathing the plot of land under C.S. Dag No. 16/2720 measuring 53 acres of patta No. 304-A of Unit A-1 Imphal Municipality to the petitioner Yumnam Tampha Ibema Devi?
(2) Is the Court fee paid properly?
(3) Is the petitioner Yumnam Tampha Ibema Devi entitled to the relief claimed?
It appears that by judgment and order dated 9.4.2004 the learned Additional District Judge accepted the prayer and directed as follows:
Heard Learned counsel for the parties. and also for the discussion, observations and reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that (L) Y. Gouramani Singh had executed the will Ext.A/1 in favour of the petitioner. In the result, it is ordered and decreed that a letter of administration be issued in favour of petitioner on her deposit of the requisite stamp as required by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, minus the plot of land given in Exts. B/1,B/2,B/3 and B/4. Case is accordingly disposed of.
The primary stand before the High Court was that no issue was framed regarding the genuineness of the Will, and the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short the Succession Act') and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act') were not kept in view. The High Court accepted the prayer particularly with reference to the evidence of PW 2 who claimed to be one of the attesting witnesses. The High Court allowed the appeal inter alia holding that the evidence of PW2 is vague and it cannot be said that there was due execution of the will in question. PW 2 was not even having knowledge about the death of the alleged executor more than 14 years prior to the date of his giving evidence. Though he claimed that he had reached the house of said Gouramani Singh on being summoned, there was nobody present when he had gone there. He stated that he had put the signature without understanding as to why he was putting his signature and he did not know the nature of the document on which he had put his signature. He also did not state that said Yumnam Gouramani Singh put his signature on the document or if the said Gouramani Singh said anything about his signature or mark having been put on the document. He did not say anything about presence of any another person as an attesting witness in respect of any document by the said Yumnam Gouramani Singh. The High Court concluded that PW2 failed to testify anything regarding alleged due execution and attestation of the will. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
-
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has lost sight of the fact that PW2 deposed in court after a long lapse of time. Merely because he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.P. No. 264 (Consol.) of 2014. Case: Daya Shanker Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...... Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.12.2009 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated ... by order dated 6.2.1981 allowed the appeal of Ram Chet Singh and set aside the order of Naib ...Supreme Court in P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. ... Hon'ble Judges Bench I of Supreme Court in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, ...Mridula Jyoti Rao, 2007 (103) RD 38 (SC) K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil ...Ramesh v. K.M. Veeraje Ors., 2013 (120) RD 438: 2013 (99) ALR 487 held that ......
-
R.S.A. No. 4350 of 2013. Case: Gian Chand Vs Smt. Shiv Dei. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...of propounder. 23. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Youkumar Singh and others, (2009) 4 SCC 780 while interpreting section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 have held that as "11. As per provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act, for......
-
Application No.5349 of 2008 In O.P.No.875 of 2006. Case: S. V. Ramakrishnan Vs 1. P. R. Sethuraman, 2. P. R. Ramanathan, 3. P. R. Venkataraman, 4. P. R. Narayani. High Court of Madras (India)
...been laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi Bs. Yumnam Joykumar Singh and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 780. After reviewing all the case laws on the subject, the Supreme Court in paragraphs 12 and 13 had observed as 12. The attestation of the wil......
-
S.A. No. 46/2008. Case: Dillon Singh Vs Amruta Bai. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
......1. Heard on admission. 2. This second appeal at the instance of defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.9.2007 by District Judge, Balaghat in Civil Appeal ...Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N.Thimmajamma & ors. AIR 1959 SC 443 it has been held: . "20.There ...8. Recently, in Yuman Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi V. Yumnam Joy Kumar Singh and thers: (2009) 4 SCC 780, it was observed by their Lordships: . ......
-
Application No.5349 of 2008 In O.P.No.875 of 2006. Case: S. V. Ramakrishnan Vs 1. P. R. Sethuraman, 2. P. R. Ramanathan, 3. P. R. Venkataraman, 4. P. R. Narayani. High Court of Madras (India)
...been laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi Bs. Yumnam Joykumar Singh and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 780. After reviewing all the case laws on the subject, the Supreme Court in paragraphs 12 and 13 had observed as 12. The attestation of the wil......
-
S.A. No. 46/2008. Case: Dillon Singh Vs Amruta Bai. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
... ... 1. Heard on admission ... 2. This second appeal at the instance of defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.9.2007 by District Judge, Balaghat in Civil Appeal ... Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N.Thimmajamma & ors. AIR 1959 SC 443 it has been held: ... "20.There ... 8. Recently, in Yuman Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi V. Yumnam Joy Kumar Singh and thers: (2009) 4 SCC 780, it was observed by their Lordships: ... ...
-
RSA No. 166 of 2001. Case: Jawahar Singh and Diwan Singh Both sons of late Shri Lalman, resident of Village Bhangrotu, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. Vs Kishan Singh and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...Act cannot be ignored. The aforesaid decision was reiterated in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi vs. Yumnam Joykumar Singh and others, (2009) 4 SCC 780, wherein the apex Court held as As per provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act, for the due execution of a Will: (1) the testator shou......
-
RSA No. 315 of 2002. Case: Smt. Paramjeet Kaur Wife of Shri Om Parkash, resident of Village Bhatanwalai, Kishanpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. Vs Khillo Wife of Tirath Ram, daughter of late Shri Ganga Ram, resident of Village Rampur Bharapur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others, (2008) 15 SCC 365. 2. Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi versus Yumnam Joykumar Singh and others, (2009) 4 SCC 780. 3. Gopal Swaroop versus Krishna Murari Mangal and others, (2010) 14 SCC 3. Learned counsel for the parties agree that only substantial quest......