0

Second wife cannot be the legal heir without consent of first wife: Supreme Court.

Blog , , ,

The case ,Savitri Bai versus Savitri Bai [S.L.P.(C) No.33563 of 2011] originated with a complaint that Savitri Bai the plaintiff purchases the suit property registered under sale deed. This case was dismissed by the Additional civil Judge later it went for appeal but it was also dismissed. It again went for the second appeal then it was allowed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

In favor of Meghraj the sale deed was written .Savitri bai goes to court and she didn’t receive any judgement because oath which was given by her was not clear. So it was dismissed. She goes for appeal and judgement was given that the will which was written by her husband was not specific and clear. So the case will be reconsidered in court again.

Then the court directed both parties for the current state of things prevailing on the date . The plaintiff delivered the possession but the first defendant too forcibly. After that the first defendant claimed that she neither sold the suit property to the plaintiff nor delivered the possession. As plaintiff was not educated and faith in her family members she has signed the sale deeds unknowingly without her consideration. The trail court has dismissed the suit. It has found that the plaintiff was in stand and there were many contradictions in pleadings. In the first appeal it has known that the execution of the sale deed was of no avail of the suit . So it dismissed the appeal. Then the second appeal by plaintiff then the high court found the court findings .The high court said that the plaintiff was the right owner of the suit property.

Suhadra Bai will be a legal heir. If she signs then only the deed will be sold. But the court declared that the Savitra Bai gets the property.

The plaintiff affixed her signature not only in the sale deeds but also other sale deeds which were executed by her step mother and many people. Once evidence was adduced in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act,1872 and requirements prescribed under section 63 of Indian Succession Act,1925.

“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 – K.Immey Grace

Click to view the judgement.

0

Second wife cannot be the legal heir without consent of first wife: Supreme court.

Blog , , ,

The case ,Savitri Bai versus Savitri Bai [S.L.P.(C) No.33563 of 2011] originated with a complaint that Savitri Bai the plaintiff purchases the suit property registered under sale deed. This case was dismissed by the Additional civil Judge later it went for appeal but it was also dismissed. It again went for the second appeal then it was allowed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

In favor of Meghraj the sale deed was written .Savitri bai goes to court and she didn’t receive any judgement because oath which was given by her was not clear. So it was dismissed. She goes for appeal and judgement was given that the will which was written by her husband was not specific and clear. So the case will be reconsidered in court again.

Then the court directed both parties for the current state of things prevailing on the date . The plaintiff delivered the possession but the first defendant too forcibly. After that the first defendant claimed that she neither sold the suit property to the plaintiff nor delivered the possession. As plaintiff was not educated and faith in her family members she has signed the sale deeds unknowingly without her consideration. The trail court has dismissed the suit. It has found that the plaintiff was in stand and there were many contradictions in pleadings. In the first appeal it has known that the execution of the sale deed was of no avail of the suit . So it dismissed the appeal. Then the second appeal by plaintiff then the high court found the court findings .The high court said that the plaintiff was the right owner of the suit property.

Suhadra Bai will be a legal heir. If she signs then only the deed will be sold. But the court declared that the Savitra Bai gets the property.

The plaintiff affixed her signature not only in the sale deeds but also other sale deeds which were executed by her step mother and many people. Once evidence was adduced in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act,1872 and requirements prescribed under section 63 of Indian Succession Act,1925.

“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 – K.Immey Grace

Click to view the judgement

0

Karnataka High Court Rules: Registrar Cannot Direct Registration of Sale Deed After Civil Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance

Blog ,

Karnataka High Court

A Vasudevachar & Others v. The District Registrar & Others

WRIT PETITION NO.48476 OF 2013

Bench- Hon’ble Justice K S Hemalekha

Decided On 29-05-2023

 Facts of the case-

The petitioners in this case have raised a contention regarding respondent No.3’s claim that the petitioners entered into an agreement of sale with him regarding the suit property. It is alleged that respondent No.3 presented the sale deed before the sub-registrar for registration, but the registration was refused under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, due to the absence of the petitioners.

Feeling aggrieved by this refusal, respondent No.3 chose to file an appeal under Section 72 of the Act before the District Registrar. However, during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.3 also filed a separate suit before the Civil Court seeking a decree for specific performance of the contract based on the agreement of sale. Subsequently, this suit was dismissed by the Civil Court.

Despite the dismissal of the suit, the District Registrar proceeded with the appeal by conducting an enquiry and ultimately passed the impugned order.

The petitioners argue that the District Registrar failed to properly consider that, in an appeal filed under Section 72, the Registrar does not possess the power to conduct an enquiry. They rely on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avnash Rani & Anr. Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ferozepur & Ors. This judgment established that the power of the Registrar is of a summary nature and limited in operation, and the Registrar cannot override the judgment of the Civil Court.

In summary, the petitioners assert that the District Registrar erred by conducting an enquiry in the appeal filed under Section 72, as per the binding precedent set forth by the Apex Court in Avnash Rani & Anr. Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ferozepur & Ors.

Relevant Provisions

the Registration Act, 1908 Related to
Sec. 34 Enquiry before registration by registering officer

 

Judgement

The court has rendered a decision stating that when a lawsuit seeking specific performance of a sale agreement, filed by the intended purchaser, is dismissed, it is contrary to the law for the District Registrar to direct the registration of the sale agreement while disregarding the order of the Civil court. The bench emphasized that during the pendency of the application before the Registrar, the aforementioned lawsuit was dismissed, thereby rendering the Registrar’s decision to order registration of the document contrary to the law.

In the present case, respondent No.3 approached the Sub-Registrar for the registration of a document, but the Sub-Registrar declined to register it. In response, respondent No.3 filed an application before the Registrar under Section 73 of the Registration Act. However, it is pertinent to note that during the pendency of this application before the Registrar, the lawsuit in question was dismissed. Consequently, the court concluded that the Registrar’s decision to direct the registration of the document was in violation of the law, and the invocation of the Registrar’s jurisdiction lacked good faith, particularly in light of the Civil court’s decree.

In essence, the court held that when a lawsuit seeking specific performance is dismissed, it is unlawful for the Registrar to order the registration of the sale agreement. The Registrar’s decision must be in conformity with the law, and any invocation of the Registrar’s jurisdiction should be made in good faith, considering the existence of a decree by the Civil court.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

click here to view judgement

“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.”