Supreme Court Upholds Will, Rejects Sale Deed in Property Dispute: Savitri Bai vs. Savitri Bai (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 152

Judges: Sanjay Karol, J. and Sanjay Kumar, J.

Can a sale deed override a previously executed will? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a property dispute between two parties with the same name, Savitri Bai. The core issue revolved around the validity of a sale deed versus a will, both claiming ownership of the same property. The Supreme Court, in this case, had to determine whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Sanjay Karol and Sanjay Kumar, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute in Katni, Madhya Pradesh. Late Babulal Kahar had two wives. Savitri Bai, the first defendant, was his daughter from his first wife. Suhadra Bai, his second wife, had four sons and two daughters. Babulal passed away on 06.02.1978. The plaintiff, also named Savitri Bai, claimed to have purchased the suit property on 18.01.1979 from Suhadra Bai and her children, including the first defendant, Savitri Bai. The plaintiff alleged that she was dispossessed by the first defendant on 25.01.1979. The first defendant contended that her father, Babulal, had bequeathed the property to her son, Meghraj, through a will dated 23.03.1977.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, ruling that the plaintiff was inconsistent in her claim of possession and that the Will was duly proved. The First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, stating that the property belonged to Meghraj by virtue of the Will and he was not a party to the sale deed. However, the High Court reversed these findings, disbelieving the Will. The High Court held that the first defendant would not have signed the sale deed if the will was genuine and that the will was produced late.

Legal Framework

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the proof of execution of a document required by law to be attested. It states that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution.
• Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section outlines the requirements for a valid will. It states that the will must be signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his direction, and that the signature must be made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses.

Arguments

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

• The plaintiff claimed that she purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 18.01.1979 from Suhadra Bai and her children, including the first defendant.
• She asserted that she was delivered possession of the property after the sale deed but was forcibly dispossessed by the first defendant on 25.01.1979.
• She argued that the Will dated 23.03.1977 was fabricated and illegal.

First Defendant’s Arguments:

• The first defendant contended that she did not sell the property to the plaintiff nor did she deliver possession.
• She claimed that her father, Babulal, had executed a Will on 23.03.1977, bequeathing the suit property to her son, Meghraj.
• She stated that she signed the sale deed under the impression that her signature was needed as a daughter of Babulal, and that she did not receive any consideration for the sale.

Analysis of Arguments:

The plaintiff’s case was based on the sale deed, while the first defendant relied on the Will. The High Court questioned the Will’s genuineness because it was not produced earlier and the first defendant had signed the sale deed. The first defendant explained that she signed the sale deed because she was told it was required as Babulal’s daughter, and she had not read the document.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff got possession of the disputed house after purchasing it from the defendant and other owners on 10.01.1979 by registered sale deed?
2. Whether the sellers had the right and title to sell?
3. Whether the defendant took illegal possession over the disputed house on 25.01.1979?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get vacant possession of the house and compensation @ Rs. 1/- per day?
5. Whether the suit is not properly valued?
6. Whether sufficient court fee has not been paid?
7. Relief and costs.
8. Whether late Babulal has executed a will deed of the disputed house in the year 1977 in favor of Meghraj, son of defendant, if yes then effect?
9. Whether the suit of plaintiff is time barred, if yes its effect?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court relied on H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N.Thimmajamma [AIR 1959 SC 443]* to emphasize that once the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, are satisfied, the Will stands proved. The Court found that the High Court had overlooked the evidence of the scribe and the attestors of the Will.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the evidence supporting the validity of the Will and the lack of a valid transfer of title through the sale deed. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for proving a Will as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court also considered the first defendant’s explanation for signing the sale deed, which was found to be plausible.

The Court found that the High Court had erred in reversing the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The High Court had disregarded the evidence of the scribe and attestors of the Will, which had been duly proved. The Court also noted that the first defendant’s explanation for signing the sale deed was plausible, as she was not educated and relied on the assurances of her step-mother and her sons.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had applied its own notions and reversed the findings of fact and law of the lower courts. The Court found that the High Court had failed to appreciate the independent evidence adduced to prove the Will. The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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”

“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.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• A will, if validly executed and proved, can supersede a subsequent sale deed.
• Courts must adhere to the requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 when proving a will.
• Mere participation in a sale deed does not automatically imply knowledge of the contents, especially for uneducated individuals.
• High Courts should not reverse the concurrent findings of lower courts without sufficient reason.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a duly executed and proven will takes precedence over a subsequent sale deed when determining property ownership. This case reinforces the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for proving a will and highlights that mere participation in a sale deed does not automatically imply knowledge of its contents. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of independent evidence in proving a will.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the decisions of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Court held that the Will was validly executed and proved, and therefore, the property belonged to Meghraj. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in reversing the concurrent findings of the lower courts.