Supreme Court Upholds Inheritance Rights Based on Proven Will: Aman Sharma vs. Umesh (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 05 July 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 619
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Can a person transfer property rights based on a will that is not proven in court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a property dispute, emphasizing the importance of establishing the validity of wills for property transfers. The core issue revolved around competing claims to a multi-story house, with the court ultimately upholding the rights of the plaintiffs based on a duly proven will. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K. Maheshwari.

Case Background

The dispute concerns a multi-story house located in Ferozepur. The plaintiffs (Respondents 1 to 4) claimed ownership through inheritance, asserting that the property originally belonged to their grandfather, Lt. Pt. Lahori Ram. Lahori Ram allegedly executed a will on 15.11.1957 in favor of their father, Krishna Kumar. After Lahori Ram’s death on 21.10.1977, Krishna Kumar became the owner. Krishna Kumar then executed a will on 20.10.1993 in favor of his second wife, Sushila Kumari, who is the mother of the plaintiffs. Sushila Kumari became the owner after Krishna Kumar’s death on 22.05.1997. Following Sushila Kumari’s death on 29.07.2000, the plaintiffs inherited the property.

Defendant No. 1, Nand Kishore, claimed to be Krishna Kumar’s son from his first wife, Bimla Rani. Nand Kishore asserted ownership based on a will dated 09.12.1975, allegedly executed by Lahori Ram in his favor. Nand Kishore sold the property to the Appellants (Defendants No. 2 and 3) on 04.05.2006. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking possession and compensation, challenging the sale by Nand Kishore.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court ruled that neither of the wills allegedly executed by Pt. Lahori Ram (dated 15.11.1957 and 09.12.1975) were proven. It concluded that Krishna Kumar inherited the property as the sole legal heir of Lahori Ram and that the will executed by Krishna Kumar in favor of Sushila Kumari was duly proven. The Trial Court set aside the sale deed of 04.05.2006, as Nand Kishore had no right to alienate the property. The First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, stating that Krishna Kumar had valid reasons for executing the will in favor of Sushila Kumari. The High Court dismissed the RSA, finding no substantial question of law to warrant interference.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the principles of inheritance and the validity of wills under the relevant personal laws. The court examined the evidence presented to determine the validity of the wills and the rightful ownership of the property based on succession laws. There is no specific statute mentioned in the judgment.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Defendants No. 2 & 3):

• The findings of the lower courts declaring Krishna Kumar as the sole legal heir were incorrect because he had a brother and a sister.
• The Plaintiffs acquiesced to the rights of Defendants No. 2 & 3 by not filing a suit for cancellation of the sale deed.
• The purchase was bona fide, after due diligence, and verification of records.
• The Appellants relied on the house tax assessment record of 1992-93, water bills, and electricity bills in the name of Defendant No. 1.
• They also obtained a non-encumbrance certificate and published a public notice.
• The rights of the Appellants as bona fide purchasers were ignored by the lower courts.
• The decree is silent on the consideration paid by them, leading to unjust enrichment.
• The Plaintiffs approached the courts with unclean hands by concealing that Krishna Kumar was earlier married to Bimla Rani and had children.
• There is no material to prove that Sushila was the legally wedded wife after the death of Bimla Rani.

Arguments by the Respondents (Plaintiffs):

• The Appellants failed to prove that the Plaintiffs concealed material facts. This issue was not pressed during arguments before the Trial Court and thus decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.
• The three courts below recorded findings of fact proving the will executed by Krishna Kumar in favor of Sushila Kumari.
• The will dated 09.12.1975 in favor of Defendant No. 1 was not proven.
• Krishna Kumar was the sole owner and had the right to alienate the property to Sushila Kumari.
• Defendants No. 2 & 3 cannot acquire any title from Defendant No. 1.
• The findings of the lower courts are neither perverse nor illegal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the findings of the lower courts declaring Krishna Kumar as the sole legal heir of Lt. Pt. Lahori Ram were perverse.
2. Whether the Appellants were bona fide purchasers of the subject property.
3. Whether the Plaintiffs approached the courts with unclean hands by concealing material facts.
4. Whether the Will executed by Krishna Kumar in favour of Sushila Kumari was valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly mention any legal precedents or provisions. However, the court relied on the principles of inheritance and the requirement to prove a will to establish ownership. The court did not explicitly approve, follow, or overrule any specific authority.

Judgment

The Court did not explicitly cite any authorities, but the reasoning was based on the following principles:

• The two wills allegedly executed by Lt. Pt. Lahori Ram were not proved.
• Krishna Kumar, being the sole legal heir, inherited the property.
• The will executed by Krishna Kumar in favor of Sushila Kumari was duly proven.
• Defendant No. 1 had no title to transfer to Defendants No. 2 & 3.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence to support the claims of the Appellants and the clear chain of inheritance established by the Respondents. The Court emphasized the importance of proving the validity of wills and the principle that a person cannot transfer a title they do not possess. The sentiment was strongly in favor of upholding the established legal process and the rights of the rightful heirs based on a proven will.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principle that a person cannot transfer a title they do not possess, and the factual aspects of the case were considered to determine the rightful ownership based on the presented evidence.

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the facts and evidence clearly pointed towards the validity of the will in favor of Sushila Kumari and the lack of title of Defendant No. 1.

The decision was based on the principle that a person cannot transfer a title they do not have. The court emphasized the importance of proving the validity of wills to establish rightful ownership.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice J.K. Maheshwari, with Justice Indira Banerjee concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the application of established principles of inheritance and the requirement to prove a will. The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles.

Key Takeaways

• A person cannot transfer a title they do not possess.
• Wills must be duly proven in court to establish ownership.
• Bona fide purchasers cannot acquire better title than the seller.
• Failure to challenge a sale deed directly does not invalidate the claim of rightful ownership.
• The court did not comment on the validity of the sale deed and kept it open for the Appellants to take recourse as per law.

This judgment reinforces the importance of due diligence in property transactions and the need to verify the title of the seller. It also highlights the significance of proving wills to establish a clear chain of inheritance. This decision may influence future cases involving property disputes arising from conflicting claims of ownership based on wills.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person cannot transfer a title they do not possess, and a will must be duly proven in court to establish ownership. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles of inheritance and property law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The Court emphasized that the Plaintiffs had established their ownership of the property through a valid will, while the Appellants failed to prove a valid title. The judgment reinforces the importance of proving wills and the principle that a person cannot transfer a title they do not possess. The court did not comment on the validity of the sale deed and kept it open for the Appellants to take recourse as per law.