The Supreme Court held that a sale deed executed by the person (not being an owner of the property) in the plaintiff’s favor wouldn’t entitle the plaintiff to claim ownership/possession over such property. Reversing the findings of the High Court which held the plaintiff to be an owner of the property, the Bench Comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Sanjay Kumar observed that the mere participation of the person, who doesn’t hold title over the property, as a signatory to the execution of the sa
“In consequence, title to the property belonging to Meghraj (defendant no.2) did not pass under the said sale deed even though his mother (defendant no.1) was a signatory thereto in her own individual capacity. The verdicts of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court holding so were, therefore, perfectly valid and justified and the High Court erred in overturning the same by applying its own notions and reversing their findings of fact and law.”, the judgment authored by Sanjay Kumar J. sai
Background
A property was bequeathed through a ‘Will’ in favor of defendant no. 2 i.e., son of defendant no.1 (mother of defendant no.2). The property was bequeathed by father (Babulal) of defendant no.1 in her son’s favor. Sale deeds of the various properties held by Babulal were executed in favor of the plaintiff/respondent. The defendant no.1/mother participated in the execution of the sale deed and was a signatory to the sale deeds. Amongst various sale deeds executed in the plaintiff’s fa
The plaintiff sought ownership/possession of the bequeathed ‘Will’ property on the note that defendant no.1 being mother of the defendant no.2/actual owner was a signatory to the execution of the sale deed. However, defendant no.1 contended that she neither sold the suit property to the plaintiff nor did she deliver possession thereof to the plaintiff. She stated that, as she was not educated and had faith in the relatives who executed other sale deeds in the plaintiff’s favor, she signed sale
The Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the title of the disputed property being vested in defendant no.2 couldn’t have been passed in the plaintiff’s favor. However, in the Second Appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of the trial court and first appellate court and declared the plaintiff/respondent as the real owner. It is against the decision of the High Court that the defendant/appellant preferred the civil appeal
Supreme Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff cannot seek title over the property in which the defendant no.1 was signatory to the execution of the property, as the title over the property wasn’t vested with the defendant no.1 to transfer such property to the plaintiff. Further, the court noted that defendant No. 1 fault couldn’t aid the plaintiff as she had signed the sale deed under the impression that she was participating in the sale of her family’s share in the p
‘Will’ Stands Proved Once Mandatory Requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act Are Satisfied
The Supreme Court noted that the participation of the first defendant in the execution of the Sale Deed thereafter wouldn’t aid the plaintiff/respondent after the court founds that the Will was duly executed in favor of defendant No. 2/actual owner. The depositions of the attestors of the ‘Will’ also remained unshaken and evidenced that the same was signed by the executor of the ‘Will’ in their presence and they, in turn, affixed their signatures in his presence.
While placing reliance on H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N.Thimmajamma, the Supreme Court stated that once such evidence was adduced in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested), and the mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Execution of unprivileged Wills), were duly satisfied, the Will stood proved in the eye of law and the same ought not to have been brushed aside lightly.
“As the Will was duly proved to be genuine, the participation of the first defendant in the execution of the Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 thereafter paled into insignificance. The owner of the property under the Will was Meghraj, the second defendant, and he was neither a party to the said sale deed nor did his mother affix her signature therein in the capacity of being his guardian.”, the court records.
Conclusion
“In consequence, title to the property belonging to Meghraj (defendant no.2) did not pass under the said sale deed even though his mother (defendant no.1) was a signatory thereto in her own individual capacity. The verdicts of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court holding so were, therefore, perfectly valid and justified and the High Court erred in overturning the same by applying its own notions and reversing their findings of fact and law.”, the court decided.
Case Details: Savitri Bai and another Versus Savitri Bai, Civil Appeal No. 9035 of 2013. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 178
Will stood proved in eyes of law once evidence was adduced in terms of Sec68 of Evidence Act & mandatory requirements prescribed u/s 63 of Succession Act were duly satisfied: Supreme Court