Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal arising from a property dispute concerning three agricultural lands (Gat Nos. 57, 58 and 59) situated at village Murli. The original plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 75/2001 seeking declaration that a Will executed in favour of one Keshav Bhaware (predecessor of the defendants/appellants) was null and void, and for declaration of their own title and possession. The plaintiffs claimed that the property originally belonged to Sambhaji Bhaware, who had a son Thakaji and a daughter Vithabai. According to them, the property came to Thakaji's share and after his death to his daughter Anjanabai, who died issueless on 2.9.1998. The plaintiffs claimed to be the heirs of Vithabai (plaintiff No. 1 being her son, and plaintiffs 2 and 3 being sons of plaintiff No. 1) and thus entitled to the property. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed title through a Will executed by Anjanabai in favour of Keshav Bhaware (husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendants 2 and 3). The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their relationship with Anjanabai and that the Will was validly proved. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision and decreed the suit, leading to the present second appeal. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the burden of proof and the validity of the Will. After hearing both sides, the High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving their title by succession, as they did not produce any documentary evidence of relationship or mutation entries. The court further held that the Will in favour of Keshav Bhaware was a registered document and was duly proved by examining one of the attesting witnesses, which raised a presumption of genuineness. The plaintiffs' reliance on handwriting expert evidence was rejected as inconclusive. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court, and restored the trial court's decree dismissing the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The court framed substantial questions of law regarding burden of proof and validity of Will - Held that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the trial court's findings without properly appreciating evidence (Paras 1-5). B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 101 - Plaintiffs claiming title by succession must prove their relationship and that the property devolved upon them - Held that plaintiffs failed to discharge this burden (Paras 6-10). C) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Will - Attestation - Section 63 - A registered Will carries presumption of genuineness unless suspicious circumstances are proved - Held that the Will in favour of Keshav Bhaware was duly proved by examining one attesting witness (Paras 11-15). D) Evidence Act - Expert Evidence - Section 45 - Handwriting expert's opinion is not conclusive and must be corroborated by other evidence - Held that the trial court rightly rejected the expert evidence as it was not supported by other material (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs proved their title to the suit property by succession and whether the Will executed in favour of the defendant's predecessor was valid and genuine.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, and restored the trial court's decree dismissing the suit.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on plaintiff to prove title
- Presumption of genuineness of registered Will
- Attestation of Will under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act
- 1925
- Rejection of expert evidence on handwriting when not corroborated
