LexDUNI CHAND versus VIKRAM SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1202 : 2024 INSC 516 Duni Chand v. Vikram Singh and Others (Civil Appeal No. 8187 of 2023) 10 July 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in extending the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the defendants despite the lack of specific pleadings, and no evidence to show consent of interested persons. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 41 – Transfer by ostensible owner – Consent of persons interested in the immovable property required – No specific pleading or evidence showing the consent, whether express or implied, of the interested persons – Relief granted in favour of defendants by the High Court relying on Section 41 was unwarranted. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Proviso to Section 41 – requires that the transferees take reasonable care to ascertain the transferor’s authority and act in good faith – Defendants failed to plead or prove these requirements – Hence, reliance on Section 41 by the High Court unwarranted. Held: Plaintiff had a registered Will dated 12.12.1988 (‘1988 Will’) bequeathing the suit land to him – Defendant No. 1 based on Will dated 16.05.1994 (‘1994 Will’) got his name mutated in the revenue records and subsequently transferred the land to other defendants – High Court confirmed the first Appellate Court’s finding that the 1988 Will was a valid and genuine document, and the 1994 Will was invalid and shrouded in suspicion – However, it extended the benefit of Section 41, TP Act, to the purchasers of the property from defendant No. 1 – Appeal against reliance on Section 41, TP Act, allowed. Section 41, TP Act, requires the consent, express or implied, of persons interested in the immovable property – Plaintiff was * Author [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1203 Duni Chand v. Vikram Singh and Others an interested person as the 1988 Will was in his favour, but no pleadings or evidence showed that the defendants had obtained consent from him – Furthermore, the proviso to Section 41 requires transferees to take reasonable care and act in good faith, which also was not pleaded by defendants 2, 4, and 5 – Thus, the relief granted by the High Court under Section 41 was unwarranted, misplaced, and against the pleading and evidence on record. [Paras 12, 13]. Wills – If vendor has no rights under the invalid Will, purchasers could not acquire any better rights. Held: Once the High Court had determined the 1988 Will was genuine and the 1994 Will was invalid, no rights accrued to defendant no.1 under the invalid Will – Therefore, defendant no. 2, 4, and 5 could not obtain any better right, title, or interest than defendant no.1 – Appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants allowed. [Para 14]. Wills – Findings on validity of Will well-reasoned – A pure finding of fact – No interference Held: Findings of the first Appellate Court and the High Court on validity of the 1994 Will being shrouded in suspicion are well-reasoned and based on evidence on record – It is a pure finding of fact, and no interference is merited – Appeal by defendant no.1 dismissed. [Para 15]. List of Acts Transfer of Property Act, 1882. List of Keywords Ostensible owner; Section 41, Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Invalid will; Lack of pleadings; Better right. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8187 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2017 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in RSA No. 392 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No. 8188 of 2023 1204 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Bimal Jad, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ridhi Jad, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Ms. Aakanksha Tiwari, Hemant Sharma, Kshav Choudhary, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ravi Bakashi, Ms. Sayma Feroz, Manvendra Pratap Singh, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Ms. Riddhi Jad, Nirdosh Bhola Vishen, O.P. Singh, Atul Mahan, Ms. Purnima Jauhari, Advs. for the appearing parties. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Both the above appeals assail the correctness of the judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereby the RSA No.392 of 2005 titled Vikram Singh and others Vs. Tota Ram (since deceased) through LRs was partly allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court was partly upheld and partly set aside. 2. Relevant facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as under: (a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.