METPALLI LASUM BAI (SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS versus METAPALLI MUTHAIH (D) BY LRS.

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1341 · Decided: 21-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH

Judgment (excerpt)

[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,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.