Supreme Court of India
METPALLI LASUM BAI (SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERSversusMETAPALLI MUTHAIH (D) BY LRS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 879
- Decided
- 21 July 2025
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The trial court was correct in declaring the Will genuine and granting the plaintiff her full share under it, and the High Court's reduction of her share was a manifest error.
Summary
The dispute concerned the ownership of a 4‑acre 16‑gunta plot in Dasnapur village, claimed by the second wife of the deceased Metpalli Rajanna (Lasum Bai) under a registered Will dated 24 July 1974 and an oral family settlement. The trial court held that the Will was genuine, that it allocated a specific share to Lasum Bai and a larger share to her stepson Muthaiah, and granted her a declaration of title and permanent injunction. On appeal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reduced Lasum Bai's share to one‑quarter of the property, treating the land as joint family property, and set aside the trial court's decree. The Supreme Court examined the validity of the registered Will, the admissions of the parties, and the presumption of genuineness attached to a registered document, concluding that the Will was authentic and that the trial court's findings were correct. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's decree, allowing the appeal of the plaintiff and dismissing the counter‑appeal, and held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the lower court's judgment.
Issues considered
- The authenticity and legal effect of the registered Will dated 24 July 1974.
- Whether the oral family settlement could be admitted as evidence to determine the parties' shares.
- The appropriate share of the plaintiff Lasum Bai in the disputed property under the Will and family settlement.
- The applicability of Hindu Undivided Family principles to the property after the death of Metpalli Rajanna.
- The validity of the High Court's reduction of the plaintiff's share to one‑quarter of the property.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XXII Rule 10
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court, manifestly erred while interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court and substituting its own findings by reducing the share of plaintiff-LB in the suit schedule properties; whether the view taken by the trial Court was of the evidence and the prevailing legal principles. Headnotes† Suit – Declaration of title – Registered Will – Family settlement – Distribution of the properties – Plaintiff-LB (second wife of MR) filed a suit being original suit no. 2 of 1991 for
Subjects
WillDeclaration of titleFamily settlementPartitionHindu Undivided FamilyRegistered WillInheritanceCivil AppealProperty dispute
Judgment
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1341 : 2025 INSC 879
Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Others
v.
Metapalli Muthaih (D) by Lrs.
(Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015)
21 July 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court, manifestly erred while interfering with the
well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court and substituting its own
findings by reducing the share of plaintiff-LB in the suit schedule
properties; whether the view taken by the trial Court was based
on appreciation of the evidence and the prevailing legal principles.
Headnotes†
Suit – Declaration of title – Registered Will – Family settlement –
Distribution of the properties – Plaintiff-LB (second wife of MR)
filed a suit being original suit no. 2 of 1991 for declaration of
her title over the suit schedule properties i.e., the properties
which came to her share under the registered Will dated
24.07.1974 executed by MR – Defendant-M (son of MR from
his first marriage) set up a case in his written statement that
the properties were joint ancestral properties and as MR died
intestate in the year 1983, he became the sole coparcener of
the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) – Trial Court decreed suit
in favour of plaintiff and declared her to be a true owner of
the suit scheduled properties – However, the High Court set
aside the trial Court’s judgment and held that the defendant-M
was entitled to 3/4th share and the plaintiff-LB was entitled to
only 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties – Correctness:
Held: 1. The genuineness of the Will is beyond doubt because it
not only confers the right and title over a part of the land owned
by the Testator, MR to the plaintiff-LB, but it also grants a lion’s
share of the property to the defendant-M – Had it been the intention
of MR to deprive the defendant-M of the land or if the Will had
been manipulated, then the defendant-M could have been left out
completely from gaining any benefits under the Will – The view
taken by the trial Court being based on apropos appreciation of the
* Author
1342 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
evidence and the prevailing legal principles is unassailable in facts
as well as in law – The High Court, manifestly erred while interfering
with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court and substituting
its own findings by reducing the share of plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the
suit schedule properties – The judgment and decree rendered by
the trial Court is, consequently, restored. [Paras 10-12]
2. The Will is a registered document – The defendant-M in his
evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the said Will
(Ext.-A1) to be that of his father, i.e., MR – The Will distributed
the properties in defined proportions between the plaintiff-LB,
defendant-M and R (widowed daughter of MR) – There is ample
material on record to establish that MR anticipated that the
relations between plaintiff-LB and defendant-M were not congenial
and that is why, in order to avoid future conflicts, he divided his
properties by way of a family settlement and bequeathed a share
thereof to plaintiff-LB, while leaving the major share to his son
i.e., the defendant-M – The distribution of the properties, as per
the family settlement (regarding which oral evidence was led),
and the registered Will is almost in the same proportions – The
Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption
regarding genuineness thereof – MR admitted the fact that the
plaintiff-LB was in possession of 6 acres and 16 guntas of land,
which fell into her share as per the Will – In this background, the
trial Court was right in holding that MR made a fair distribution of
his tangible assets amongst his legal heirs by executing the Will
dated 24.07.1974 and so also the oral family settlement. [Para 9]
List of Keywords
Will; Declaration of her title; Will distributed the properties;
Admission of the signatures as appearing on the registered Will;
Ancestral properties; Will is a registered document; Presumption
regarding genuineness.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2014 of the High Court
of A.P At Hyderabad in AS No. 178 of 1995
With
Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1343
Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Others v.
Metapalli Muthaih(D) by Lrs.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh,
Alakh Alok Srivastava.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Guntur Prabhakar, Alakh Alok Srivastava.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. These two appeals arise out of rival claims of the legal representatives
of late Metpalli Rajanna over a chunk of land admeasuring 4 acres
and 16 guntas located at village Dasnapur.
3. For the sake of convenience, the genealogical table of the parties
is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“Metpalli Ramanna
(died pre-1949)
Metpalli Rajanna
(died in 1983)
First Marriage Second Marriage
(with Narsamma, who (with Lasum Bai,
predeceased Rajanna) Plaintiff, died 2015)
No Children
Muthaiah Rajamma
(D1, died in 2014) (D2, died during
appeal)”
4. Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals
are as below.
4.1. The original land holder i.e., Metpalli Ramanna died intestate
prior to 1949. The total landed property owned by Metpalli
Ramanna is described below: -
1344 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Survey Nos. Village Description of Properties
28 Dasnapur Ac. 12-32 Guntas Dry Land.
6 Mavala Ac. 1-25 Guntas Wet Land.
9 Mavala Ac. 1-13 Guntas Wet Land.
1/84 Savaragaon Ac. 2-34 Guntas Dry Land.
Total 18 acres 06 guntas
4.2. Metpalli Rajanna, the legal heir of Ramanna married Narsamma
and from their wedlock, two children, namely, Muthaiah1 and
Rajamma were born. Narsamma died during the lifetime of
M.Rajanna who contracted second marriage with Lasum Bai2
who did not bear any child. M. Rajanna expired in the year
1983 and his daughter Rajamma also died intestate on which, a
dispute over the right to property arose between plaintiff-Lasum
Bai on the one side and defendant-Muthaiah on the other.
4.3. As per the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, M.Rajanna anticipated the
disputes between her and his son from the 1st marriage i.e.,
defendant-Muthaiahand to avoid the same, he made an oral
family arrangement distributing his properties as below: -
Lasum Bai 1. Sy. No. 28 of Dasnapur Village-Ac.6-16 Gts
(2nd wife of out of Ac.12-32 Gts.
M. Rajanna)
2. 1/3rd portion of Sy. Nos. 6 & 9 Mavala
Village, out of Ac. 2-38 Gts.
3. Cattle shed bearing Panchayat No. 3-4
situated at Savaragaon Village.
Muthaiah 1. Sy. No. 28 of Dasnapur Village-Ac.6-16 Gts
out of Ac.12-32 Gts.
2. 1/3rd portion of Sy. Nos. 6 & 9 Mavala
Village, out of Ac. 2-38 Gts.
Rajamma 1. Sy. No. 1/84 of Savaragaon Village, Ac.
(widowed 2-34 gts.
daughter)
2. 1/3rd portion of Sy. Nos. 6 & 9 Mavala
Village., out of Ac. 2-38 Gts.
1 Hereinafter, referred to as “defendant-Muthaiah”.
2 Hereinafter, referred to as “plaintiff-Lasum Bai”.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1345
Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Others v.
Metapalli Muthaih(D) by Lrs.
4.4. M. Rajanna also executed a registered Willin favour of plaintiff-
Lasum Bai recognizing the share of defendant-Muthaiah in the
joint family properties. The said Will was registered on 24th
July, 1974.
4.5. The case set up on behalf of plaintiff-Lasum Baiin the suit was
that she was granted the rights over 6 acres 16 guntas from
the chunk of land in Survey No. 28 of the Village Dasnapur
which was located towards the north of the undivided plot of
land whereas, defendant-Muthaiah was granted 6 acres 16
guntas of land towards south of the said plot. The said plot is
the bone of contention between the parties.
4.6. Admittedly, the plaintiff-Lasum Bai sold two acres of land from
her purported share to one Sanjeeva Reddy vide registered
sale deed dated 27th August, 1987. The said registered sale
deed was never questioned before any forum and remain sun
challenged. The plaintiff-Lasum Bai had entered intoanother
agreement on 15th July, 1987, for selling her remaining 4 acres
and 16 guntas landlocated in Survey No. 28 of the Dasnapur
Village3 to one Janardhan Reddy.
4.7. Aggrieved by this agreement, defendant-Muthaiah filed an
injunction suit being Original Suit No. 101 of 1987 seeking
an injunction against plaintiff-Lasum Bai and to restrain her
from selling the properties which came to her share under
the registered Will including the plot admeasuring 4 acres 16
guntas. Vide judgment and decree dated 6th July, 1990,the said
injunction suit was decreed in favour of defendant-Muthaiah.
However, it was clearly recorded in the judgment of the District
Munsif, Adilabad that the title of plaintiff-Lasum Bai was not
being examined in the said injunction suit and it would be open
for her to file a separate suit for declaration of title since she
was claiming ownership over the plot in question.
4.8. Accordingly, plaintiff-Lasum Bai filed a suit being Original Suit
No. 2 of 1991 for declaration of her title over the suit schedule
properties i.e., the properties which came to her share under
the registered Will4.
3 Hereinafter, referred to as “disputed property”.
4 Hereinafter, referred to as “suit schedule properties”.
1346 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4.9. Defendant-Muthaiah set up a case in his written statement that
the properties were joint ancestral properties and as Metpalli
Rajanna died intestate in the year 1983, he became the sole
co-parcener of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
4.10. Plaintiff-Lasum Bai based her claim on the registered Will dated
24th July, 1974 which was marked as Ext.-A1. She examined
two witnesses in support of her case. Defendant-Muthaiah
appeared and deposed as DW-1 and in his statement, he
made some significant admissions. The relevant extracts from
his deposition are quoted hereinbelow: -
“Chief Examination:
My grandfather Ramanna performed my marriage
and the marriage of my elder sister 2nd defendant.
2nd defendant is a widow and she is residing with
me. There were no divisions of the properties during
the life time of my father. My father and myself were
residing jointly. Myself and my father were jointly
cultivating the properties mentioned by me. My father
did not execute any will. My father had not shown
any will to me, 2nd defendant and to the villagers. I
am presently residing in Savaragaon village. Since
12 years I am living separately from plaintiff. We
are living separately because my wife, is not on
good terms with the plaintiff. My father in order to
save the family from disputes allowed my mother
plaintiff to cultivate some part of the agricultural
lands. In Dist. Munsiffs court, Adilabad I filed a suit
against the present plaintiff and in that suit, she came
forward with the plea that my father had executed
a will. My father had not executed any will. The will
is a got up document. I have five daughters. 3 of
them are married. In order to meet the expenses
of my daughters marriage I converted the land
at Dasnapur into plots and (sic) I sold about 10
plots @ Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/ per plot. The size
of the plot is 40 to 50 feet. The contention of the
plaintiff that she is cultivating Dasnapur land and
Mavala land is not correct. She has given those
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1347
Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Others v.
Metapalli Muthaih(D) by Lrs.
lands on batai basis to others. Cattle, gold, silvers,
cart and Nizam coins and other movable properties is
with my mother i.e. plaintiff. Her claim that my father
had executed a will deed in her favour and that she
is the rightful owner of all the properties is not true.
When my father allowed the plaintiff to cultivate the
lands to avoid family disputes as state of my father’s
health was not good.
Cross Examination for the plaintiff:
…… My father allowed me to cultivate half of
the land on the Southern side. My father asked
her to cultivate 4 guntas of land in Mavala and
asked me to cultivate 6 guntas in Mavala. My
father made this arrangement on the date of his
death (Arrangement relating to my cultivation
on the Southern side and the plaintiff on the
Northern side in Mavala village). My father did
this arrangement in the presence of elders. There
were no elders witness again says. I do not know
whether my father made arrangement about 20
years back asking my mother to cultivate half
of the land in Dasnapur on Northern side…….
I have sold plots in Dasnapur on the southern side
which were under my occupation. It is true that
plaintiff sold 2 acres of land in Northern portion
of Dasnapur land to one P. Sanjeeva Reddy under
registered sale deed. Those 2 acres of land is in
possession of Sanjeeva Reddy even before I filed
the suit. The 3rd defendant has been cultivating
4 acres 16 guntas in Dasnapur village which was
in possession of the plaintiff since (sic) the time
of my filing the suit in Munsiff’s court. My mother
has not sold Ac. 4-16 guntas to Janardhan Reddy
3rd defendant…..
I have come to know that patta for the land in
Dasnapur to the extent of half is in the name of the
plaintiff. This I came to know after filing the suit in
Munsiffs office. I came to know that she filed Pahanies
1348 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in the Munsiffs court when I filled the suit in the court,
I came to know that she filed Pahanies in the Munsiffs
court when I filed the suit in that court, showing that
she was holding patta to the extent of half. I have
shown myself as pattadar to the extent of half
of the entire extent of the southern side. .......
My father literate. I can identify the signature of
my father. The signatures shown to me in Ex.
A-1 signatures in all the sheets (6) are that of
my father.”
(Emphasis supplied)
4.11. The suit filed by plaintiff-Lasum Bai came to be decreed by the
District Judge, Adilabad5 vide judgment and decree dated 15th
November, 1994 with the following pertinent findings: -
i. That the plaintiff-Lasum Bai had established her case that
M. Rajanna had executed the Will (Ext.-A1) in a sound
disposing state of mind.
ii. That in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the
admission of the first defendant that M. Rajanna had
allowed defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to cultivate their respective
portions of land, distinct from each other and that they had
been in exclusive possession over their respective portions
of land and made it clear that the family arrangement
pleaded by the plaintiff-Lasum Bai was true.
4.12. With these conclusions arrived at after thorough appraisal of
evidence on record, the trial Court proceeded to decree the suit
in favour of the plaintiff-Lasum Bai and granted a declaration that
the plaintiff-Lasum Bai was the true owner and had exclusive
title over the suit schedule properties mentioned in the plaint
and also granted her permanent injunction against defendant
Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., defendant-Muthaiah and his sister, Rajamma.
4.13. Being aggrieved, the defendant-Muthaiah, along with his sister,
Rajamma preferred an appeal being Appeal Suit No. 178 of
1995 in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at
5 Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1349
Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Others v.
Metapalli Muthaih(D) by Lrs.
Hyderabad6. The High Court, vide judgment dated 23rd January,
2014 allowed the appeal in part and set aside the trial Court’s
judgment and decree dated 15th November, 1994 holding that
the defendant-Muthaiahwas entitled to 3/4th share and the
plaintiff-Lasum Baiwas entitled to only 1/4th share in the suit
schedule properties upon death of M. Rajanna and Rajamma
and restricted the plaintiff-Lasum Bai’s entitlement only to that
extent. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court determined
the rights of the parties in the following terms:-
“31) In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the
extent, while setting aside the trial Court’s decree
and judgment in granting declaration of title and
injunction for entire plaint schedule properties of
the present suit in favour of the plaintiff (appeal-1st
respondent Lasumbai); however, by holding that as
those are part of the joint family properties of 1st
defendant who got 3/4th share and the plaintiff got
1/4th share from death of Rajanna and from death
of Rajamma respectively, the plaintiff’s entitlement
is only to that extent so to declare her title with no
relief of injunction since undivided, thus by granting
preliminary decree for partition for said shares of
plaintiff and 1 st defendant respectively, so as to
enable them to apply for final decree for division of
the entire properties in which the plaint schedule
are part and in so dividing plaintiff’s 1/4th share to
consider to the extent possible in the plaint schedule
respective items by equity for allotment in S.No.28/1
of Dasnapur village Southern side 1/4th out of the total
extent of Ac.12-31 guntas, firstly upon the vendee for
Ac.2-00 therein and for any other extent to claim by
the 3rd defendant subject to enforcement of the so
called contract for sale between plaintiff and said 3rd
defendant; so also subject to proof of alienations in
other extents to claim such equities by such vendees
out of the 1/4th share of the plaintiff while dividing so
to allot. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.”
6 Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
1350 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4.14. The said judgment of the High Court has been challenged by
plaintiff-Lasum Bai (appellant No. 1) and appellants Nos. 2-6
being the legal representatives of the purchaser i.e., Janardhan
Reddy before this Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 5921 of
2015. However, plaintiff-Lasum Bai (appellant No. 1) died on
17th January, 2015 without any legal representatives. Upon her
death, appellants Nos. 2-6 being the legal representatives of
Janardhan Reddy preferred an application under Order XXII
Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission
to represent the estate of plaintiff-Lasum Bai to the extent of 4
acres and 16 guntas i.e., the portion of plot located in Survey
No. 28 of the Dasnapur Village which was purportedly sold by
plaintiff-Lasum Bai to Janardhan Reddy vide registered sale
deed dated 22nd November, 1994.
4.15. Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 came to be filed by the legal
representatives of defendant-Muthaiah who have challenged
the direction of the High Court granting 1/4th share of the suit
scheduled property to plaintiff-Lasum Bai.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants: -
5. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants being the legal representatives of Janardhan Reddyand
representing the estate of plaintiff-Lasum Bai, vehemently and
fervently contended that even going by the genealogy of the parties
and assuming that the Will (Ext.-A1) was not in existence, the
plaintiff-Lasum Bai would get 1/3rd share of the properties owned
by M. Rajanna which would be much more than the area of the
disputed property.
5.1. He further urged that the registered Will (Ext.-A1) has been
proved by leading unimpeachable evidence. The defendant-
Muthaiah admitted the signatures of M. Rajanna on the Will
and thus, undeniably the plaintiff-Lasum Bai inherited the suit
schedule property under the said Will and the sale made by
her to appellant Nos. 2 to 6 being the legal representatives
of Janardhan Reddy is valid and cannot be called into
question.
5.2. He further submitted that as per the evidence of the plaintiff-
Lasum Bai and the admissions appearing in the statement of
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1351
Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Others v.
Metapalli Muthaih(D) by Lrs.
the defendant-Muthaiah referred to supra, existence of the
registered Will and oral family settlement is well established.
5.3. The plaintiff sold 2 acres out of her share of 6 acres and 16
guntas land in the village Dasnapur to Sanjeeva Reddy by a
registered sale deed dated 27th August, 1987. The said sale
deed though very much in knowledge of the defendant-Muthaiah,
was never challenged before any forum. Hence, apparently,
defendant-Muthaiah has acquiesced to the right of plaintiff-
Lasum Bai over the suit schedule properties. He urged that
the High Court clearly fell in error in interfering with the well-
reasoned judgment of the trial Court.
5.4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the defendant-
Muthaiah had earlier filed suit for injunction (Original Suit No.
101 of 1987) against plaintiff-Lasum Bai wherein he specifically
referred to the sale deed executed in favour of Sanjeeva Reddy
by plaintiff-Lasum Bai and consciously chose not to assail the
said sale deed. Thus, the defendant-Muthaiah is estopped by
law from questioning the right of plaintiff-Lasum Bai to sell the
disputed property.
On these grounds, learned senior counsel implored the Court
to set aside the impugned judgment; restore the judgment of
the trial Court and allow Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents: -
6. E-converso, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently
and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned senior
counsel for the appellants. He urged that the unpartitioned land was
owned by Ramanna who expired before 1949. Thus, all properties
owned by Ramanna upon his death devolved in equal shares upon M.
Rajanna and defendant-Muthaiah being the two male co-parceners.
He submitted that the registered Will which was executed by M.
Rajanna in favour of plaintiff-Lasum Bai, defendant-Muthaiah and
Rajamma has no sanctity in the eyes of law because the said Will
was executed by M. Rajanna in the capacity of the owner of the entire
land in question whereas the fact remains that the land was not the
self-acquired property of the testator i.e., M. Rajanna. Thus, as per
learned counsel, the plaintiff-Lasum Bai did not gain any legal right
whatsoever over the property under the registered Will.
1352 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6.1. He further submitted that the High Court rightly held that the
family settlement could not be acted upon because the said
settlement granted title over the property in question to the
parties and being unregistered, it could not be admitted in
evidence for any purpose whatsoever.
6.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit (Original Suit
No. 101 of 1987) filed by the defendant-Muthaiah was decreed
and plaintiff-Lasum Bai was perpetually injuncted from selling
the land in question. The said judgment was never challenged
and has attained finality. Hence, the sale deed in respect of the
disputed property executed by plaintiff-Lasum Bai in favour of
Janardan Reddy has no sanctity in the eyes of law.
6.3. He urged that the judgment rendered by the High Court is
based on sound reasoning. The High Court has adverted to
the prevailing facts in detail and reached to an unimpeachable
conclusion that the plaintiff-Lasum Bai did not gain any right
whatsoever under the disputed Will or the so-called oral family
settlement. Despite the aforesaid findings, the High Court erred
in granting 1/4th share to plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the joint family
properties which is ex facie sustainable in facts and law.
He, thus, implored the Court to dismiss the appeal jointly filed by
plaintiff-Lasum Bai and the legal representatives of Janardhan
Reddy and allow the appeal filed by defendant-Muthaiah thereby
setting aside the judgment of the High Court to the extent that
it granted 1/4th share to plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the joint family
properties.
Discussion and Conclusion: -
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance
perused the impugned judgment and the material available on
record.
8. At the outset, we may note that it is an admitted position as emerging
from the record that after the death of M. Ramanna, the revenue
entries (Khasra Pahunis) of the land in question were entered in
the name of M. Rajanna. This Court has been apprised that as per
the prevailing revenue laws in the State of Andhra Pradesh, these
entries provide evidence of ownership over the land. The subject
suit was filed by plaintiff-Lasum Bai specifically basing her claim
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1353
Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Others v.
Metapalli Muthaih(D) by Lrs.
onthe registered Will (Ext.-A1) dated 24th July, 1974 and the oral
family settlement.
9. The Will is a registered document. The defendant-Muthaiah in his
evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the said Will
(Ext.-A1) to be that of his father, i.e., M. Rajanna. The Will distributed
the properties in defined proportions between the plaintiff-Lasum
Bai, defendant-Muthaiah and Rajamma (widowed daughter of M.
Rajanna). There is ample material on record to establish that M.
Rajanna anticipated that the relations between plaintiff-Lasum Bai
and defendant-Muthaiah were not congenial and that is why, in order
to avoid future conflicts, he divided his properties by way of a family
settlement and bequeathed a share thereof to plaintiff-Lasum Bai,
while leaving the major share to his son i.e., the defendant-Muthaiah.
The distribution of the properties, as per the family settlement
(regarding which oral evidence was led), and the registered Will is
almost in the same proportions. The Will,is a registered document
and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The
trial Court accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence
led before it. As the Will is a registered document, the burden would
lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof,who would be
defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it was not executed
in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances
which made the same doubtful. However, the defendant-Muthaiah in
his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the registered
Will to be those of his father, M. Rajanna. He also admitted the
fact that the plaintiff-Lasum Bai was in possession of 6 acres and
16 guntas of land, which fell into her share as per the Will. In this
background, the trial Court was right in holding that M. Rajanna
made a fair distribution of his tangible assets amongst his legal
heirs by executing the Will dated 24th July, 1974 and so also the oral
family settlement. We are of the view that the evidence available on
record fortifies the existence and persuasive nature of the oral family
settlement which is countenanced by the factum of the possession
of the suit schedule properties including the disputed property, which
was admittedly with the plaintiff-Lasum Bai and subsequently the
purchaser i.e., Janardhan Reddy.
10. The genuineness of the Will is also beyond doubt because it not
only confers the right and title over a part of the land owned by the
Testator, M. Rajanna to the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, but it also grants a
1354 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
lion’s share of the property to the defendant-Muthaiah. Had it been
the intention of M. Rajanna to deprive the defendant-Muthaiah of
the land or if the Will had been manipulated, then the defendant-
Muthaiah could have been left out completely from gaining any
benefits under the Will.
11. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm
view that the trial Court was fully justified in decreeing the suit for
declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-Lasum Bai
and granting her absolute rights over the suit schedule properties
including the disputed property admeasuring 4 acres and 16 guntas
which was sold to Janardhan Reddy vide registered sale deed dated
22nd November, 1994. The view taken by the trial Court being based
on apropos appreciation of the evidence and the prevailing legal
principles is unassailable in facts as well as in law.
12. The High Court, manifestly erred while interfering with the well-
reasoned judgment of the trial Court and substituting its own findings
by reducing the share of plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the suit schedule
properties. Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 23rd January,
2014,rendered by the High Court does not stand to scrutiny and
the same is hereby reversed and set aside. The judgment and
decree dated 15th November, 1994 rendered by the trial Court is,
consequently, restored.
13. Accordingly, Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015 is allowed and the Civil
Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: C.A. No. 5921 of 2015 is allowed and
C.A. No. 5922 of 2015 is dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Will"Sign in to search