Smt. Prabha Singh 6 Others vs Ram Achal Singh

Heard Sri Virendra Mishra learned counsel for the appellants and Mohd. Jaid learned counsel for the sole respondent who has put in appearance on caveat.

¶12

Under challenge is the judgment of reversal dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.3 Ayodhya in Regular Civil Appeal no.6 of 2024 whereby it has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 19.02.2024 in Regular Suit no.624 of 2003. As a consequence, the suit for cancellation for sale deed dated 29.09.2003 which was dismissed by the trial court has been decreed by the first appellate court.

¶13

The defendant appellants are before this Court and it is urged that admittedly the property in question belonged to Sri Shiv Sahai Singh.

¶14

He along with his wife Prabha Singh had jointly executed a registered Will dated 20.05.1999. In the said Will, the properties after the death of the two testators would vest with the nephews i.e. respondent and his brother-Raja Mohan Singh.

¶15

It is further pointed out that Shiv Sahai expired on 15.01.2002 and, thereafter, the property vested with Smt. Prabha Singh his widow. Smt. Prabha Singh executed a sale deed on 29.09.2003 in favour of the appellant nos.2 to 7.

¶16

SAPL No. 148 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

It is, at this stage, that the respondent who is an estranged nephew, filed a suit for cancellation of the said sale deed. The suit came to be dismissed by the trial court which has been decreed by the first appellate court and it is in this view that the defendants who are the appellant before this court has urged that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is patently erroneous and it moves on an incorrect proposition of law.

¶19

Sri Mishra learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no dispute to the fact that Shiv Sahai was the exclusive owner of the property in question. It is also not in dispute that there was a joint Will dated 20.05.1999 in terms whereof only after the death of both Shiv Sahai and Prabha Singh the property would have gone to the nephews i.e. respondent and his brother Raja Mohan, however, since after the death of Shiv Sahai, his wife being a full owner executed a sale and the property was transferred, then the eventuality in terms of the Will did not reach fruition to give any right to the respondent to file the suit for cancellation.

¶20

It is further urged that since the respondent was the propounder of the Will, no evidence was led to prove the Will either way and the assumption of the first appellate court that since Prabha Singh had admitted the Will, hence it did not require any proof, is also contrary to law for the reason that any right could have gone to the respondent only if it was ascertained and held that Smt. Prabha Singh only had a life estate and respondent and his brother Ram Kuwar Singh were vested remainders, in absence of any evidence to this effect the premise upon which the first appellate court has proceeded is erroneous and even the intention behind the execution of the Will was to be established by evidence, which was not led.

¶21

Matter requires consideration.

¶22

The appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law:

¶23

(i) Whether the first appellate court could have merely treated the Will to have been proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act in absence of any witness or material evidence on record to establish that Smt. Prabha Singh had limited or life estate or the intention of Shiv Sahai Singh was to

¶24

SAPL No. 148 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

grant limited rights to his wife?

¶27

(ii) Whether the findings returned by the first appellate court is erroneous and merely because the Will was not propounded by the respondent any inference could have been drawn to decree the suit in favour of the respondent and put the sale deed of the appellant under cloud ?

¶28

Since, the respondent is already present, hence, fresh notice is not required.

¶29

Summon the lower court record.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant shall take steps within a week.

¶31

List this matter in the month of November, 2025 for hearing.

¶32

As an interim measure, it is provided that operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.07.2025 shall remain stayed and the parties shall not alienate or create any third party right in the property in question until further orders.

¶33

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶34

September 9, 2025

¶35

Harshita

¶36

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Prabha Singh 6 Others v. Ram Achal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Prabha Singh 6 Others v. Ram Achal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umesh Chandra Pandey vs Smt. Vasudha Pal and 6 Others

Umesh Chandra Pandey vs Smt. Vasudha Pal and Another

Archana and 2 Others vs U.P. State Transport Corporation Thru. Regional Manager Ayodhya and Another

Kapil Verma vs Rameshwar Brick Field,Mishrakhera,Pipargaon Thru. Proprietor Smt. Sarita Devi @ Sarita and Others

Smt. Bishun Dei vs Sant Ram and 2 Others

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Its Divisional Manager vs Arti Devi and 4 Others