LexDHANUULALAND OTHERS versus GANESHRAMANDANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015] 4 S.C.R. 199 DHANUULALAND OTHERS v. GANESHRAMANDANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 3410 of 2007) APRIL 08, 2015 [M. Y. EQBAL AND AMIT AVA ROY, JJ.] Transfer of Property - Execution of Will by original A B c defenda[lt No. 1 - In respect of property inherited by her after her husband's death - In favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 - Original defendant No. 1 also excuted sale in respect of a portion ofJhe property in favour of defendant No. 5 - Suit o challenging the execution of Will and Sale alleging inter-a Ii a that the original defendant No. 1 was a mistress and not legally wed wife-Trial Court dismissed the suit- High Court held that Will was not proved as per law, but the sale deed was valid - Cross-appeals by defendants as well as plaintiff E - Held: In the facts of the case, there is strong presumption in favour of validity of marriage and such presumption was not rebutted hence the sale-deed was valid- However, the Will suffers from serious suspicious circumstances - Therefore, the order of High Court does not need interference F - Will - Sale. Evidence - Proof of a Will- Standard of- Held: Proof of a Will stands on higher degree, in comparison to other documents - There must be clear evidence regarding G execution of the Will - Will. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The law presumes in favour of marriage H 199 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A and against concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a long time. However, the presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. A heavy burden lies on a party, who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal B origin. In the instant case, instead of adducing unimpeachable evidence by the plaintiff, a plea was taken that the defendant has failed to prove the fact that defendant No. 1 was the legally married wife. The C relationship of defendant No. 1 and her husband has not been denied. It has also not been denied that they had been living together as husband and wife in a joint family. Thus, in the facts of the case, there is strong presumption in favour of the validity of a marriage and o the legitimacy of its child for the reason that their relationship is recognized by all persons concerned. The High Court, therefore, came to a correct conclusion by recording a finding that defendant No. 1 was the legally married wife of 'C'. [Paras 11, 12 and 15] [206-B- E F; 207-F-G] F A. Dinohamy vs. W.L. Balahamy AIR 1927 PC 185; Goka/ Chand vs. Parvin Kumari Al R 1952 SC 231: 1952 SCR 825 - relied on. 2.1 The execution of a document does not mean mec~anical act of signing the document or getting it signed, but an intelligent appreciation of the contents of the document and signing it in token of acceptance G of those contents. Proof of a Will stands in a higher degree in comparison to other documents. There must be a clear evidence of the attesting witnesses or other witnesses that the contents of the Will were read over to the executant and he, after admitting the same H . · DHANUULAL AND ORS. v. GANESHRAM AND ANR. 201 to be correct, puts his signature in presence of the A witnesses. It is only after the executant puts his signature, the attesting witnesses shall put their signatures in the presence of the executant. [Paras 18 and 19] [209-G-H; 210-A-C] B 2.2 In the present case, the will suffers from serious suspicious circumstances. When the Will was being executed, the thumb imp1 ~ssion over the alleged Will was also taken by the beneficiaries and the document-writer was shown to be scribe of the C document, whereas the document was not scribed by him. However, original defendant No. 1 although filed written statement before her death, but she did not whisper anything about the Will in the written D statement. Admittedly, the Will was allegedly executed in 1977 whereas the written statement was filed some time in 1987. [Para 20] [210-C-E] AIR 1927 PC 185 1952 SCR 825 Case Law Reference relied on. relied on. Para 13 Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3410of2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2006 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in First Appeal No. 92 of2001. WITH. C. A No. 3411 of 2007 S. K. Dubey, Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Yogesh Tiwari (for Mridula Ray Bharadwaj), Navin Prakash, H. K. Chaturvedi, E F G Navin Prakash, Niraj Charma for the appearing parties. H 202 SUPREME COU
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.