Savitri Bai vs Savitri Bai

2024 INSC 152 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9035 OF 2013 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 33563 of 2011)

Savitri Bai and another … Appellants

Versus

Savitri Bai … Respondent

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. Civil Suit No. 22A/80 was dismissed by the learned Additional

Civil Judge, Class-1, Mudwara Katni, vide judgment dated 21.12.1992.

The same stood confirmed in appeal by the learned First Additional

District Judge, Mudwara Katni, when Civil Appeal No. 1A/1993 filed by

the plaintiff was dismissed on 14.03.1997. However, Second Appeal

No. 395 of 1997 filed by the said plaintiff was allowed by the High Court

of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on 28.07.2011. Thereby, the High Court Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Vijay Kumar Date: 2024.02.29

declared that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit house property under 16:33:59 IST Reason:

the registered Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 and decreed its possession in 1 her favour. Further, the High Court declared the Will dated 23.03.1977

executed in favour of Meghraj, the second defendant, null and void.

Aggrieved thereby, the defendants in the suit filed this appeal.

2. By order dated 28.11.2011, this Court directed both parties to

maintain status quo prevailing as on that date. On 30.09.2013, the interim

order was directed to continue till the final disposal of the appeal.

3. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4. Late Babulal Kahar had two wives. Savitri Bai, the first

defendant, was born to him through his first wife. Suhadra Bai, the

second wife, gave birth to four sons, viz., Madanlal, Ratanlal, Ramesh

Kumar and Suresh Kumar; and two daughters, Asha Bai and Baby.

Babulal died on 06.02.1978. Suhadra Bai and her progeny were initially

arrayed as respondents in this appeal but their names were deleted

thereafter. They were not made parties to the suit or the first appeal.

5. The case of Savitri Bai, the plaintiff, was that she purchased

the suit property situated in Ishwaripura Ward, Katni, under registered

Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 from Suhadra Bai, the widow of Babulal;

Madanlal, Ratanlal, Ramesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Asha Bai and Baby,

the children of Babulal and Suhadra Bai; and Savitri Bai, the first

defendant, being Babulal’s daughter through his first wife. The plaintiff

2 claimed that she was delivered possession of the suit property after

execution of the sale deed but the first defendant dispossessed her on

25.01.1979 and took forcible possession thereof. She further claimed that

the first defendant failed to handover vacant possession despite receiving

notices dated 25.07.1979 and 14.09.1979. She then filed the subject suit

for possession of the suit property. After the first defendant filed her

written statement, the plaintiff amended her suit prayer and also sought a

declaration that the Will Deed dated 23.03.1977 executed by Babulal in

favour of Meghraj, the son of the first defendant, shown as the second

defendant in the suit, was illegal and fabricated.

6. In her written statement, the first defendant claimed that she

neither sold the suit property to the plaintiff nor did she deliver possession

thereof to her. According to her, she had been living at Damoh with her

family but, after her husband passed away on 09.05.1976, her father

brought her and her children to Katni and allowed her to live in the suit

property. Thereafter, her father executed a Will, bequeathing the suit

property to Meghraj, his grandson, i.e., the second defendant. She

asserted that Suhadra Bai, Madanlal, Ratanlal, etc., had sold some of the

properties that fell to their share in favour of their tenants and she was

told that, as she too was the daughter of Babulal, her signature was also

3 necessary. She stated that, as she was not educated and had faith in

them, she signed sale deeds again and again. She, however, asserted

that she never received any consideration. After receiving the plaintiff’s

notices, she claimed that she clarified that she had not sold the suit

property and was assured by the plaintiff’s husband that he would take

back the consideration from the others and leave her property.

7. The following issues, verbatim, were framed for trial: -

‘1A Whether plaintiff after purchasing the disputed house from defendant and other owners on 10.01.1979 by registered sale deed, had got its possession?

1B Whether sellers were having right and title to sell?

2. Whether defendant took illegal possession over the disputed house on 25.01.1979?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get vacant possession of the house and compensation @ Rs. 1/- per day

4.A Whether the suit is not properly valued?

4.B Whether sufficient court fee has not been paid?

5. Relief and costs

6. Whether late Babulal has executed will deed of the disputed house in the year 1977 in favor of Meghraj, son of defendant, if yes then effect?

7. Whether suit of plaintiff is time barred, if yes its effect?’

8. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1. She also examined

PWs 2 & 3 in support of her case. The first defendant deposed as DW1

and DWs 2 to 4 were examined in relation to the Will dated 23.03.1977.

4

9. The Trial Court held in favour of the first defendant on issues

1A, 1B, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and dismissed the suit. It found that the plaintiff was

not consistent in her stand as to the taking of possession of the suit

property and there were contradictions between her pleadings and her

deposition on oath. In her cross-examination, the plaintiff had stated that

she was the tenant of Babulal in the suit property. The Trial Court

observed that, if this was true, the question of the plaintiff being delivered

possession after the sale deed did not arise. Other contradictions

between her pleadings and oral evidence were also noted. Munnalal

(PW2) stated that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from

Babulal himself, contrary to the stand of the plaintiff. Motilal (PW3), on the

other hand, stated that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from the

sons of Babulal. The first defendant stated that her father had executed

Will dated 23.03.1977 in favour of her son. L.K. Sampariya, Advocate, the

scribe of the Will, was examined as DW3, while Pyarelal and Babulal, the

attestors of the Will, were examined as DWs 2 & 4. Upon consideration of

this evidence, the Trial Court held that the Will was duly proved and, in

consequence, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, in the

absence of Meghraj, the legatee under the Will, was held invalid. The

Trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit with costs.

5

10. In appeal, the learned First Additional District Judge,

Mudwara Katni, upheld the findings of the Trial Court. The learned Judge

affirmed that the participation of the first defendant in the execution of the

sale deed was of no avail as the suit property belonged to Meghraj, by

virtue of the Will dated 23.03.1977, and he was not a party to the said

sale deed. Holding so, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal.

11. However, in the plaintiff’s second appeal, the High Court

reversed the findings of both the Courts and held in her favour. The High

Court disbelieved the Will dated 23.03.1977 on the ground that the first

defendant would not have affixed her signature in the sale deed at the

mere asking of her step-mother and her sons if it was true. The High

Court was of the opinion that the Will would have been produced earlier

and its mention only in the first defendant’s written statement, filed on

14.11.1980, rendered it suspicious. The High Court, however, did not deal

with the evidence adduced by the scribe and the attestors of the Will,

whereby the Courts below had held it duly proved. It is on this basis that

the High Court concluded that the plaintiff was the rightful owner of the

suit property under the Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979.

12. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff also purchased other

properties that had originally belonged to late Babulal from his family

6 members, i.e., Suhadra Bai and her children. It is stated that several sale

deeds were executed in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant

explained her participation in the execution of all these sale deeds. In her

written statement, she stated that Suhadra Bai, Madanlal and Ratanlal,

who were both majors at that time, wanted to sell some parts of their

property in favour of their tenants and she was told that, as she too was

the daughter of late Babulal, her signatures would be necessary and, not

being educated, she reposed full faith in them and affixed her signatures

in several sale deeds. This aspect was not denied by the plaintiff.

13. In the Will executed by late Babulal in favour of Meghraj, the

second defendant, it was recorded that Babulal brought the first

defendant and her children to Katni after her husband, Shankar Lal, died

in May, 1976, and that he had arranged for their residence in his house

situated in Ishwaripura Ward. It was further recorded by Babulal that he

bequeathed the said house property to his grandson, Meghraj, so that

after his passing all his heirs could live peacefully. The Will details, at

great length, the property bequeathed to Meghraj. It reads as follows:

‘Hence, I am voluntarily bequeathing the sitting room, in municipal corporation house No. 922 and 922/1 wherein presently Savitri Bai is living and wherein Jawahar is living and the land which is lying vacant in front thereof, to Meghraj. After my death apart from Meghraj nobody else would have right and claim over this

7 property. The rooms given by me are constructed in left hand of kamani erected on entrance gate of bara. Accordingly, today on 23.03.1977 at Katni I have made signature on this will deed after reading and understanding before witnesses.’

14. The High Court glossed over this Will, entertaining a doubt as

to its genuineness, only on the ground that it was not produced earlier

and as the first defendant had affixed her signature in the Sale Deed

dated 18.01.1979. The knowledge imputed by the High Court to the first

defendant in relation to the said sale deed was not warranted as it was

her specific case that she had affixed her signature in not only this sale

deed but all the other sale deeds executed by her step-mother and the

others, being under the impression that the same was required as she

was also the daughter of late Babulal. Therefore, no conscious

knowledge could be attributed to her only in relation to the Sale Deed

dated 18.01.1979 and her not speaking of or producing the Will at that

time could not be held against her, as she was under the impression that

she was participating in the sale of her family’s share in the properties, by

way of abundant caution. In effect, the question of her raising the issue of

the Will did not even arise.

15. Further, the High Court failed to appreciate the independent

evidence adduced to prove the said Will. The scribe of the Will was an

8 Advocate. Deposing as PW3, he asserted that he had written the same

upon the instructions of late Babulal. He stated that it was read over to

late Babulal and thereafter, the witnesses and late Babulal affixed their

signatures therein. The depositions of the attestors of the Will also

remained unshaken and clearly evidenced that the same was signed by

late Babulal in their presence and they, in turn, affixed their own

signatures in his presence. Once such evidence was adduced in terms of

Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the mandatory requirements

prescribed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, were

duly satisfied, the Will stood proved in the eye of law (See

H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N.Thimmajamma 1) 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.

16. In consequence, title to the property belonging to Meghraj did

not pass under the said sale deed even though his mother was a

signatory thereto in her own individual capacity. The verdicts of the Trial 1 AIR 1959 SC 443

9 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.

17. The civil appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the

judgment dated 28.07.2011 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at

Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 395 of 1997 and restoring the judgments

of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Class-1, Mudwara Katni, and the

learned First Additional District Judge, Mudwara Katni, in Civil Suit No.

22A/80 and Civil Appeal No. 1A/1993 respectively.

Parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.

………………………..,J (SANJAY KAROL)

………………………..,J (SANJAY KUMAR) February 29, 2024;

New Delhi.

10