0

Certified Copies of a Registered Will Have Been Deemed Valid Secondary Evidence in Probate Proceedings: The Delhi High Court Dismissed the Appeal of the Appellant and Allowed the Probate Proceedings

Blog, Delhi High Court , , , , ,

Case Title – Sahil Marwah & Anr. Vs. Vikas Malhotra & Ors.

Case Number – FAO (OS) 81/2023 & CM APPLs. 35932/2023, 35933/2023, CM APPL. 38987/2023

Dated on – 7th of May, 2024

Quorum – Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Sahil Marwah & Anr. Vs. Vikas Malhotra & Ors., an appeal has been filed under the Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, read with Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against orders dated 14th of March, 2023, and 6th of July, 2023 (referred to as “impugned orders”) passed in TEST. CAS. 17/2023 (referred to as “probate petition”). The Appellants in this present case are aggrieved as the Learned Single Judge entertained the probate petition instituted along with a certified copy of the registered will dated 2nd of August,2019, on the plea of the Petitioner that the original will was not available. The Appellants objected to the same, asserting that the institution of the original will is mandatory along with the probate petition. The Learned Single Judge, through an order dated 14th of March, 2023, rejected the objection of the maintainability at the threshold. The court granted the leave to the Petitioner (Respondent No. 1) to place on record the verification or the affidavit of one of the attesting witnesses to the will. Subsequently, on the 6th of July, 2023, the Learned Single Judge issued notice in the probate petition and directed the issuance of the citation without waiting for the amended probate petition, in proper form, to come on record. The Appellants asserted that the institution of the original will is mandatory along with the probate petition, whereas the Respondent No. 1 asserted that the probate petition is maintainable even with the certified copy of the registered will, as per Sections 237 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the institution of the original will is mandatory along with the probate petition, or if a certified copy of the registered will is sufficient when the original is not available?
Whether the interpretation of the Section 237 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, governs the requirements for obtaining the probate when the original will is untraceable?
Whether the Learned Single Judge possessed the jurisdiction to entertain the probate petition instituted with a certified copy of the registered will when the original was not available?
Whether the objection raised by the Appellants concerning the non-filing of the original will can be considered at the threshold stage or should only be addressed after the completion of pleadings and evidence?
Whether the probate petition raised questions regarding the validity and execution of the registered will, which would be needed to be established during the proceedings?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 prescribes the Power of Judge of the Delhi High Court
Order XLIII Rule I of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Provision of Appeals from Orders
Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 prescribes the Provision of Person Capable of Making Wills
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 prescribes the Provision of Execution of Unprivileged Wills
Section 69 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 prescribes the Provision of Revocation of Will by testator’s marriage
Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 prescribes the Provision of Revocation of Unprivileged Will or Codicil
Section 236 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 prescribes the Provision of To Whom the Administration may not be granted
Section 237 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 prescribes the Provision of probate of contents or lost of destroyed Will
Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 prescribes the Provision of Petition for probate
Section 281 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 prescribes the Provision of Verification of petition for probate by one witness to Will
Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes the Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given
Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes the Provision of Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested
Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes the Provision of Public records kept of private documents
Section 24 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1881 prescribes the Probate of copy or draft of lost will
Section 52 of the Registration Act, 1908 prescribes the Duties of registering officers when document presented
Section 57(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 prescribes that The copies of entries in Book No. 3 and in the index relating thereto shall be given to the persons executing the documents to which such entries relate, or to their agents, and after the death of the executants to any persons applying for such copies
Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, 1908 prescribes that All copies given under this section shall be signed and scaled by the registering officer, and shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of the original documents

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the presumption of law is that if the original will is not instituted with the probate petition, it may have been destroyed by the Testatrix.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that without the original will, the attesting witness cannot verify the probate petition as required by Section 281 of the Indian Succession Act,1925 and that the verification by the attesting witness is deemed necessary for the original will and a certified copy of the registered will cannot be sufficient for this purpose.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented with reference to the Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, that a registered will does not carry any presumption under the law and therefore, cannot be served as the basis for maintaining the application of the probate and that a certified copy of the will acquired from the office of the Sub-Registrar is not a substitute for the original will.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that a court commissioner appointed in a separate suit proceeding between the parties reported that no will was discovered at the Testatrix place of residence and that the affidavits from the legatees (Respondent No. 3 and 4) states that they did not have the original will and that these factors indicate that the claim by the Respondent No. 1 of the original will being unavailable is inaccurate.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the presumption of the revocation due to unavailability of the original will is weak and rebuttable with the slightest evidence and that since the original will is untraceable, it is presumed to be lost and this issue of proof will be decided conclusively in the proceedings.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the present appeal is an attempt to obstruct the probate proceedings and that the Appellants have delayed in instituting their replies to the probate petition merely because of the pendency of this appeal.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the legal precedents relied upon by the Appellants are inapplicable to the present case and that those cases did not dismiss the probate petition at the admission stage on the ground of non-filing of the original will.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Sahil Marwah & Anr. Vs. Vikas Malhotra & Ors., analysed the legal provisions and the precedent cases cited by both the parties. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Durga Prashad Vs. Debi Charan, which clarified that the absence of the original will does not ipso facto attract the presumption of revocation. The court stressed on the fact that the plea of revocation must be specifically pleaded and proved by the objector. The court referred to the Section 237 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 concerning the permissibility of relying on a certified copy of a registered will, which allows the propounder to furnish the secondary evidence of the contents of the will if the original is lost. The court also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Dhanpat Vs. Sheo Ram, which upheld the admissibility of a certified copy of a registered document. The court in this case, concluded that the objections raised by the Appellants lacked merit and that they had not specifically pleaded the revocation of the will as required by the Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Moreover, the unavailability of the original will did not disentitle the Respondent No. 1 from maintaining the probate petition based on the certified copy. The court in this case, dismissed the appeal and allowed the probate proceedings to continue and also allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

The Delhi High Court States Collusion Tactics in A Property Dispute, Imposed A Fine Of 1 Lakh Rupees: Affirms Fine to Be Paid by Appellant and Not by Lord Hanuman

Blog, Delhi High Court , ,

Case Title – Ankit Mishra & Anr. Vs. Santosh Sharma & Ors.

Case Number – EX. F.A. 42/2023 & CM APP No. 52484/2023

Dated on – 6th May, 2024

Quorum – Justice C. Hari Shankar

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Ankit Mishra & Anr. Vs. Santosh Sharma & Ors., revolves around a property dispute concerning a temple dedicated to Lord Hanuman. In this case, the Appellant No. 1 is Ankit Mishra and Appellant No. 2 is Lord Hanuman, whereas, the Respondents are Santosh Sharma, her children, and Suraj Malik. The dispute in this case arose from a property at T-201, Jain Colony, Part-I, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, where a temple dedicated to Lord Hanuman is situated. A civil suit (CS 642/2019) was instituted by Suraj Malik against Santosh Sharma and her children seeking for the possession of the property. A settlement was reached on the 31st of October, 2022, having a decree of the suit in favour of Suraj Malik. Ankit Mishra, the Appellant No. 1, along with others, instituted another suit (CS 471/2023) seeking for the right to worship at the temple, which was duly dismissed on the 19th of April, 2023. Suraj Malik instituted an execution petition (EX 52/2023) seeking for the execution of the decree dated 10th of November, 2022. Ankit Mishra, the Appellant No. 1 and Lord Hanuman, the Appellant No. 2 instituted an objection to the execution, asserting fraud and suppression in obtaining the decree. The objection instituted by the Appellant No. 1 & 2 were dismissed by the Learned ADJ on the 25th of September,2023. The court held that the objections under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were summary in nature, and that the executing court cannot go against the decree. The court discovered that the Appellants had no Locus Standi and that their objection lacked merit, as they failed to provide the substantial evidences supporting their claims. The Respondents alleged collusion as well as delay in the institution of the objections, contesting the Bona Fides of the Appellants. The court observed the discrepancies in the claims of the Appellants, including the lack of evidence in support of the establishment of the temple in the year 1997.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the Appellants possess the Locus Standi to maintain the objections in the execution petition under the Order XLVII Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Whether the temple constructed on the suit property is lawful and valid, taking into consideration the ownership of the property and any permissions or agreements related to the constructions of the temple?
Whether the judgment and decree dated 10th of November,2022, obtained in the CS 642/2019, were acquired by fraud and suppression of material facts concerning the existence of the temple on the suit property?
Whether the execution of the decrees would obstruct the rights of the Appellant No.1 to worship at the temple and carry on rituals, and if so, whether such obstruction is legally justifiable?
Whether the obstruction raised by the Appellants are Bona Fide and supported by sufficient evidence?
Whether the deity Lord Hanuman, can be considered as a legal entity with rights and interests in the suit property?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the questions arising between the parties to the suit relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Rejection of Plaint
Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property
Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser
Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Review of the Judgments
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provided the Inherent powers to the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court
Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows the court to award compensatory costs for frivolous or vexatious crimes
Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes that the property liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree

 CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Learned ADJ has erroneously adjudicated the objections raised by the Appellants according to the provisions outlined in Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and cited the case of Shreenath Vs. Rajesh to support the contentions that a third party facing the dispossession from the suit properly due to execution of a decree acquired without pleading them has the right to object under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that in the original plaint in CS 642/2019, the fact that the temple is located on the suit property was deliberately concealed by the Respondents and that there was collusion between the Respondents in acquiring the judgment and decree dated 10th of November, 2022 and that this collusion threatened the rights of the Appellants.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case illuminated the dismissal of CS 471/2023 by the Learned ADJ under Order VII Rule 11, on the basis that no cause of action existed and that the dismissal was inappropriate and that the contentions made in para 9 of the objection petition gave rise to a triable issue that should have been taken into consideration on its merits under Order XII Rule 97.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the temple should be considered as a public property based on the contentions in the objection petition that the Appellants and the other residents of the locality used to offer prayers there and that the Respondent, Suraj Malik admitted regarding the occasional prayers by the villagers at the temple.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the land on which the public temple is located bestows in the deity and cited a legal precedent to contend that a deity is a minor whose rights can be protected by its “next friend” and the Appellant No.1, as a worshipper of the deity, is competent to sue on its behalf and protect its interest.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the issues raised in the objection petition are triable and deserved consideration, rather than being summarily dismissed as done in the impugned order.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that for the land on which the temple is located to vest in the deity, there must be an endowment of the property for religious purposes and that there are no such pleadings from the Appellants suggesting that the suit property was endowed for the religious purposes and that the suit property, owned by Suraj Malik, could not vest in the deity. A legal precedent was cited from Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar to support their contention.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the application is tainted by malicious intentions and collusion between the Appellant No. 1 and Santosh Sharma and her Children (Respondents 1 to 4) and illuminated the fact that Manish Ahuja, Plaintiff No. 3 in CS 471/2023, was stated as a witness by Santosh Sharma in CS 642/2019.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the entire purpose of the attempt of the Appellants is to retain the possession of the suit property and frustrate the efforts of Suraj Malik to regain possession and cited legal precedents from Bal Bhagwan Vs. D.D.A and Durga P. Mishra Vs. G.N.C.T.D to support this contention.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Ankit Mishra & Anr. Vs. Santosh Sharma & Ors., identified a clear pattern of collusion amongst the Appellants (Santosh Sharma, Manish Ahuja and Ankit Mishra) to obstruct the execution of the decree and deprive the Respondent, Suraj Malik, of his rightful possession of the property. This collusion is evident from the strategic inclusion and exclusion of parties in the varied legal proceedings and the fabrication of disputes. The court, in this case, referred to various legal principles and precedents, stressing on the importance of distinguishing between private and public temples, the need for substantive evidence to support claims, and the consequences of abusing legal processes. The court examined whether the objections raise by the Appellants fall within the ambit of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or other relevant provisions and that whether the objections could be maintainable under the Order XXI Rule 99 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The court, in this case, dismissed the appeal, concluding that the objections raised lacked merit and were a part of a concerted effort to delay and frustrate the execution of the decree. The court recognised the abuse of legal processes and the need for dissuading, the court orders the Appellant, Ankit Mishra, to pay compensatory costs of Rupees 1 Lakh to Suraj Malik, the Respondent. The court clarified that this decision aims to discourage similar malfeasance in the future and that the costs are solely payable by Ankit Mishra and not by Lord Hanuman, whom he apparently represented in the case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

Supreme Court Affirms Land Ownership Rights Bihar Land Dispute Case, Rejects State Claim

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , ,

Case Title – Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 INSC 360

Case Number – 1627 of 2016

Dated on – 1st May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 INSC 360, the Appellant, Ram Balak, instituted a suit for possession and confirmation of the possession over 0.32 decimal of land in the Village of Kishanpur, Bihar. Initially, the land belonged to Rambit Kuwer, who through a lease deed in 1341 fasli settled it in favour of Makhan Singh. Until his death, Makhan Singh continued in possession of the land, subsequently his adopted son, Ram Balak Singh, inherited the said land. During the process of consolidation under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, the name of Ram Balak, the adopted son of Makhan Singh was recorded as the owner of the said land by the Consolidation officer. However, thereafter, the State Authorities claimed whole of the land, inclusive of the suit land, as pond land and intervened with the possession of the Appellant. The Appellant instituted a suit against the State of Bihar and another party seeking the declaration of his title over the land and the confirmation of his possession. The trial court ruled the suit in favour of the Appellant, but the decision of the court was reversed by the First Appellate Court and asserted by the High Court. The Appellant in this case, appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Appellate Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that he and his predecessor-in-interest have been in possession of the land since it was resolved in their favour.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Consolidation Officer had acknowledged his rights over the land and directed his name to be recorded in the records of rights, which should be final and conclusive.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellate Courts erred in revising the decree of the Trial Court, as he had furnished sufficient evidence to establish his rights and possession over the land.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the whole of the land was pond land and could not be settled in favour of the Appellant.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the suit was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, 1956, which bars the civil matters falling under the Jurisdiction of the Consolidation Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act, 1956 prescribes the decision of matters relating to charges and transactions affecting rights or interest recorded in revised records
  2. Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, 1956 prescribes the Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
  3. Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by court
  4. Article 32 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Right to constitutional remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen
  5. Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the power of the High Courts to issue certain writs
  6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India prescribes the power of Superintendence over all courts by the High Court

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether the order of the Consolidation Officer acknowledging the title of the Appellant over the land can be ignored or reversed by the Civil Court?
  2. Whether the suit instituted by the Appellant is barred under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, 1956?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 INSC 360, analysed the provisions of the Consolidation Act, 1956, which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in the matters related to land consolidation. The court, in this present case, observed that the order of the Consolidation Officer recognizing the rights of the Appellant over the land had attained finality and could not be ignored or reversed by the Civil Court. The Court, in this present case, held that the suit instituted by the Appellant was not challenging any decision of the Consolidation Court but seeking the recognition of his rights over the land. Thus, the court concluded that the suit instituted by the Appellant was not barred under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act,1956. The court allowed the appeal of the Appellant, set aside the judgments of the Appellate Courts and restored the decree of the Trial Court in favour of the Appellant.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

The Supreme Court scrutinized Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, highlighting its mandate for the court to determine the rightful legal representative upon the death of a party.

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , , , , , , ,

Case title: Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) v. Shyam Lal Chauhan & Ors.

Case no.: Civil Appeal Nos. 5569-5570 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.1717-1718 of 2020)

Dated on: 30th April 2024

Quorum: Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

FACTS OF THE CASE

A recent case, outlined in the judgment, underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly concerning the substitution of legal representatives in pending cases.

The case revolves around a civil suit concerning a property dispute in Bihar. Swami Shivdharmanand was one of the defendants in the suit. After his demise, the question arose regarding the substitution of his legal representative in the ongoing second appeal before the Patna High Court.

Two individuals, Swami Triyoganand and Swami Satyanand, claimed to be the rightful successors to Swami Shivdharmanand’s position. Initially, the High Court allowed both parties to be substituted as legal representatives. However, this decision was challenged, leading to a remand by the Supreme Court for the High Court to reconsider the matter.

Upon reconsideration, the High Court upheld Swami Satyanand as the legal representative, dismissing the claim of Swami Triyoganand. Dissatisfied with this decision, Swami Vedvyasanand, who claimed through Swami Triyoganand, appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasized the procedural nuances involved in determining legal representation. While the substitution of legal representatives is crucial for the continuity of legal proceedings, it does not confer any substantive rights. Instead, it merely allows representation of the deceased’s estate in ongoing litigation.

The Court referred to Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which mandates the court to determine the legal representative of a deceased party. Moreover, the proviso to Rule 5 empowers the appellate court to refer the matter to a subordinate court for factual inquiry, whose findings are then considered by the appellate court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj, the appellant, contested the order of the High Court, which substituted Swami Satyanand as the appellant in the pending Second Appeal. The appellant, through detailed contentions, argued that the High Court’s decision to reject his substitution application and uphold Swami Satyanand’s representation was procedurally flawed.

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the legal provisions governing the substitution of parties upon the death of a litigant. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to due process, the Court highlighted the limited purpose of substitution, which is to ensure the continuity of proceedings, rather than conferring any substantive rights.

Citing the precedent set in Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust, the Court reiterated that the determination of legal representation is crucial for the proper adjudication of the case. However, this determination does not grant any proprietary rights to the substituted party.

The Court noted the erroneous interpretation of Order 22 Rule 5 by the High Court and criticized its failure to consider the objections raised against the Trial Court’s report. Additionally, the Court clarified that the proviso to Rule 5 empowers the Appellate Court to consider the findings of the subordinate court while making an independent decision on substitution.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents, claiming to be successors to the deceased Swami Shivdharmanand, sought substitution in the pending appeal. Initially, the High Court allowed both parties to be substituted as legal representatives, leading to subsequent legal challenges. The Supreme Court’s intervention was sought to clarify the correct procedure for determining legal representation.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC reads as follows: Determination of question as to legal representative. — Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court.

Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefor, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question.

ISSUE –

  • The primary issue revolved around the correct procedure for substituting legal representatives in a pending appeal, particularly concerning conflicting claims.
  • Whether the High Court adhered to the procedural requirements stipulated under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) while determining legal representation.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the procedural lapses in the High Court’s decision-making process. It emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and ensuring a fair opportunity for all parties to present their claims.

The Court scrutinized Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, highlighting its mandate for the court to determine the rightful legal representative upon the death of a party. It underscored the discretionary power of the Appellate Court to consider evidence and objections before making a conclusive decision on substitution.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. It reiterated the procedural lapses observed and emphasized the need for adherence to statutory provisions. The Court clarified that its decision pertained solely to procedural irregularities and refrained from opining on the substantive merits of the claims.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to View full Judgement

0

NON-ADHERENCE TO PROCEDURAL LAWS IS THE PRIMARY REASON BEHIND PENDENCY OF CASES AND JUDICIAL DELAY: SUPREME COURT.

blog, Blog , , , , , , ,

In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deals with the selection of the legal representative of the deceased Mrs. Urmila Devi. In 1982, a sale deed carried out by Shri Mangal Singh was challenged in court by late Urmila Devi praying to declare the same null and void by asserting ownership of the properties; and an order to possess the property in question with costs. The case was still at its primal stage when Mrs. Urmila Devi died. Hence, Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain filed an application to be the legal heir.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain presented a duly registered will before the court executed by Mrs. Urmila Devi and witnessed by the current appellant Mr. Yashpal Jain. He prayed before the court to be substituted as the legal representative of Mrs. Urmila Devi. He also claimed to be her legatee according to the will. The defendants by way of presenting a registered adoption deed stated that Mr. Yashpal is adopted. The trial court ruled in favour of Mr. Manoj Jain. The order was challenged by the legal heirs of Mangal Singh by means of a civil revision petition before the district judge. In the course of the revisional proceedings, Mr. Manoj mentioned that he does not wish to proceed with application filed by him to be the legal representative of Mrs. Urmila Devi. On the basis of the proceedings, the judgement given by the trial court was overruled. The district judge directed the trial court to accept the application of condonation of delay and impleadment of a legal representative by Mr. Yashpal. Mr. Yashpal filed an application for the same as well as to dismiss the abatement of suit. The trial court allowed the same and hence ruled in favour of Mr. Yashpal Jain being the legal representative of the plaintiff. 

The legal representatives of the aggrieved party filed a civil revision application before the district judge. The judge upheld the verdict of the trial court and dismissed the petition. The defendants moved to the high court challenging the orders passed by both, the trial court and the revisional court. The high court overruled the impugned orders and rejected the application by the current appellant, relying on the initial order passed by the trial court which substituted Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain as the legal representative on the strength of the registered will and directed the courts to conclude the proceedings within 9 months. The appellants were aggrieved by the orders of the high court filed the present appeal.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the high court has made a mistake by overruling the orders of the trial court and revisional court taken after careful consideration. The lower courts have also taken diligence of the fact that Mr. Yashpal Jain is the sole living representative of Mrs. Urmila Jain and the stressed on the aforementioned fact that the defendants had pleaded to substitute the appellant in the suit pertaining to the sale deed of property by Mangal Singh. In the instance case the defendants can be seen contradicting their own stance.

The defendants contend that the appellants had not filed a counter-affidavit. On the basis of the doctrine of non-traversal this would amount to admission. The defendants mention two instances wherein the current appellant had supported Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain and his will. The appellant cannot plead ignorance for the delay.

In response to issue one the court has contended that the application filed by the defendants in regard to the writ proceedings is the very reason that the trial court and revisional court substituted Mr. Yashpal as the legal representative. The defendants cannot contend that the appellant had filed two affidavits admitting and confirming Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain as the legal representative. The affidavits were mere proof of the appellant being a signatory to the will. It did not intend to substantiate or prove any other fact to any effect.

On non-traversal of writ petition claims, the records state that Mr. Manoj himself filed an application along with an affidavit expressing his disinterest in continuing the application of being the legal representative. If the orders of the high court to not implead Yashpal Jain as the legal representative were to be sustained then the then this implies that the estate of the deceased would not be represented and the case would eventually be closed. Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the order of the high court and upheld the verdict given by the trial court and revisional court.

The hon’ble supreme court took cognizance of the fact that the case is ancient and long standing. In addition to the property suit, the death of Mrs Urmila devi brought in a plethora of suits to determine her legal representative. The current stage of the property suit is unknown but it is said to have been moving at a “snail’s pace” since her death. There are numerous causes for the delay. The hon’ble court mentioned that it is due this very reason that the general public becomes cynical of the justice delivery system. The court delves deeper into the numerous reasons for delay in delivering justice. Inconsistencies in the law, hefty paperwork, leniency in granting adjournments for no justifiable reason, misuse of the provisions of the CPC and CrPC are some of the reasons. The government has taken steps, formulated policies and amended laws to clear the backlog but it has only resulted in poor results. The amendments of the statutory laws have been unsatisfactory.  The court stresses on the fact that it is the responsibility of all the stakeholders to restrict the practices that delays the justice delivery process. The courts must introspect and come up with solutions to serve the public with an effective justice delivery system. The growth of a nation, in all aspects, depends on the strength of the judicial system. The Hon’ble court revisited the findings of various law commissions instituted over the years to find out the cause and remedies to the perpetual problem of huge pendency of cases and inefficient judicial administration. The various reports by law commissions talk about setting a time limit for both civil and criminal cases to be strictly followed by each of the courts and a plea to increase the manpower and immediate replacement in when there’s vacancy. In furtherance to the 77th report by the law commission, the 79th report provides an all- comprehensive guide for managerial judging, time bound trial procedures by trial courts, high courts and other appellate courts.

The court also mentions delays arising due to non-adherence of procedural laws majorly in civil trials. The courts have been frivolous with the grants of adjournment without ay justifiable reason. This is the primary contributory issue that leads to delays and ultimately losing confidence of the public in the justice delivery system. The court relied upon the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Another AIR (1977) 4 SCC 467 which held that the answer to an irresponsible suit or litigation would be a vigilant judge. The court acknowledges the importance of maintaining cordial relationship with judges and gives a stark remark to the lawyers to refrain from frequent adjournment requests especially while dealing with cases that have been pending since decades. Under order viii rule 1(a) of CPC a defendant must submit and present the written statement within 30 or 90 days and if he fails to do so without any genuine reason then costs must be awarded to the opposite party payable by the defendant. This rule is seldom followed.

Adjournments should be given only when the request is honest and with a bonafide intention expressed by way of affidavit. Frequent grants of adjournments defeat the purpose of the legislation. It is pertinent for all the presiding officers to strictly adhere to the time schedule provided under sub-rule 1 of rule 1 of order viii. It is the responsibility of the stakeholders to ensure the same. In the case of M. Mahalingam vs. Shashikala the intention behind the legislation was duly stated. The legislation has curbed the power of the courts to grant frequent adjournments because when a case has begun the evidence must be recorded on a daily basis and only, if necessary, adjournments should be given to the following day. This ensures that only bonfide reasons should be entertained by the court and it should be strict in it dispense of adjournments.

Innumerable legislations can be enacted to ensure speedy disposal of cases but it would be of no use until it is strictly implemented by the courts and constantly monitored by committees established for the very reason. The fundamental duties mentioned in article 51 A of the constitution must be given utmost importance in light of any problems faced by the stakeholders. The citizens must always strive towards excellency for the growth of the nation. It is important for the judiciary to regain the confidence of the public in litigation a be a ‘beacon of hope”. The Hon’ble supreme court thus directs all the lower courts to strictly adhere to the rules laid down in the procedural laws ensuring the proceedings take place as scheduled. Some courts shall be controlled by Principal District Judges who, after compiling all the statistics, shall present it before the constituted committee of the high court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis written by- Rashi Hora.

Click here to view judgement.

1 2 3 4