Supreme Court clarifies the validity of a sale deed executed by an heir after a Will: Badrilal vs. Suresh (28 October 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 28 October 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 727
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka
Can a sale deed executed by an heir be valid if it concerns property bequeathed under a will, without a prior partition? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the extent to which such a sale deed is valid. The court examined the interplay between a will, a subsequent agreement, and a sale deed, ultimately modifying the lower court’s decree. This judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute between Badrilal (appellant), Suresh (first respondent), and Ramkanya (second respondent). The dispute originated from the property of Mangilal, who had two sons, Bhuwan Ji and Mangilal. Suresh is the son of Bhuwan Ji, and Ramkanya is the daughter of Mangilal. Mangilal owned lands in Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, totaling 1.430 Hectare.

Mangilal executed a Will on 6th May 2009, bequeathing his property to Ramkanya and Suresh and his brothers. Mangilal passed away on 26th June 2009. Subsequently, Suresh and Ramkanya entered into an agreement on 12th May 2009, altering the shares mentioned in the Will. Later, on 22nd February 2011, Ramkanya sold a portion of the land to Badrilal. Suresh filed a suit contesting this sale.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of Suresh, declaring the Will valid and the agreement illegal, and the sale deed void. The District Court upheld the validity of the Will but modified the decree, stating that Ramkanya could not sell her share without a partition. The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by Badrilal, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which outlines the methods for revoking an unprivileged Will.

Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 states:

“70. Revocation of unprivileged Will or codicil.— No unprivileged Will or codicil, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked otherwise than by marriage, or by another Will or codicil, or by some writing declaring an intention to revoke the same and executed in the manner in which an unprivileged Will is hereinbefore required to be executed, or by the burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying the same by the testator or by some person in his presence and by his direction with the intention of revoking the same.”

The court noted that under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a Will can be revoked only by:

• Execution of another Will or codicil.
• A writing executed by the testator declaring an intention to revoke the Will, executed as an unprivileged Will.
• Burning, tearing, or destroying the Will by the testator or someone under their direction.

The Court also referred to Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which specifies the requirements for attestation of a will.

Arguments

Appellant (Badrilal):

• The Trial Court granted relief to Suresh that was not claimed by him.
• The District Court modified the Trial Court’s decree, which is contrary to law.
• The agreement dated 12th May 2009, bearing Mangilal’s thumb impression, revoked the Will dated 6th May 2009.
• Ramkanya, as Mangilal’s daughter, inherited the entire property due to the revocation of the Will.
• The sale deed dated 21st February 2011, should be valid to the extent of the land allotted to Ramkanya under the Will.

Respondent (Suresh):

• The Will dated 6th May 2009, was not revoked by Mangilal according to law.
• The concurrent finding of the courts below is that the Will dated 6th May 2009, has been duly proved.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issues addressed by the court were:

• Whether the agreement dated 12th May 2009, effectively revoked the Will dated 6th May 2009.
• Whether the sale deed dated 21st February 2011, executed by Ramkanya, was valid.
• To what extent the sale deed was valid in light of the Will.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court relied on Section 70 and Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Court relied on Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925* to conclude that the agreement did not revoke the Will because it did not meet the statutory requirements for revocation.

✓ The Court relied on Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925* to conclude that the agreement was not attested by two witnesses and hence, the Will was not revoked.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal requirements for the revocation of a will as outlined in Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the fact that the agreement did not meet these requirements. The court emphasized that the thumb impression on the agreement was not attested as required by Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court also considered the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the validity of the Will. The court aimed to uphold the testator’s intentions as expressed in the validly executed Will, while also acknowledging the legal limitations on the sale deed executed by Ramkanya.

Logical Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the agreement dated 12th May 2009, did not meet the requirements for revoking a will under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Specifically, the thumb impression of Mangilal on the agreement was not attested by two witnesses, as required by Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Therefore, the Will remained valid. Consequently, Ramkanya could only sell the land she was bequeathed under the Will, which was an undivided share of 3 Bigha and 10 Biswa. The sale deed was therefore valid only to this extent.

The Court stated, “Therefore, the Will dated 6th May 2009 was not revoked during the lifetime of Mangilal.”

Further, the Court noted, “Therefore, the agreement will not have the effect of transferring the property to Suresh and Ramkanya.”

The Court clarified, “Therefore, the sale deed executed by Ramkanya on 21st February 2011 will be valid only to the extent of the area which she acquired under the Will of Mangilal.”

Key Takeaways

• A will can only be revoked as per the methods prescribed in Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• An agreement that purports to revoke a will must meet the statutory requirements for revocation.
• A sale deed executed by an heir is valid only to the extent of the share they are legally entitled to.
• If a property is bequeathed by a will, the sale of the property without partition would be valid only to the extent of the undivided share of the seller.

Directions

The Court directed that it will be open for the parties to file a suit for partition of lands allotted to them as per the Will dated 6th May 2009.

Development of Law

The judgment clarifies that a sale deed executed by an heir is valid only to the extent of the land they inherited under a valid will. It reinforces the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for the revocation of a will as per Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court modified the decree of the District Court, holding that the sale deed executed by Ramkanya was valid only to the extent of the land she inherited under the Will. The Court emphasized that the agreement did not revoke the Will, and therefore, the sale was valid only for Ramkanya’s undivided share. The parties were given the option to file a suit for partition.