Rampati and Another v. Harishankar and Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2025SAPL/204/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal admitted on substantial questions of law regarding will deed cancellation, burden of proof under Section 68-A Evidence Act, and perversity of appellate findings. Status quo ordered.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal admitted on three substantial questions of law; lower court record summoned; notice issued to respondents 3 to 5; status quo of suit property maintained. ¶25-35

Rampati and Another vs Harishankar and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SECOND APPEAL No. - 204 of 2025

Rampati And Another

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Harishankar And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Samarth Saxena
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Yogendra Singh, Amritesh Kumar Tripathi, Parth Srivastava

¶9

Court No. - 19

¶10

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Samarth Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants. Sri Yogendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶12

The instant appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2024 ( Harishankar and another Vs. Rampati and others) by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Lakhimpur Kheri, vide which the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2024 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 2007 ( Rampati and others Vs. Harishankar and others) by Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Lakhimpur Kheri was set aside.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of Will-deed allegedly admitted by Smt Rampati, mother of appellant no.1 and 2 and respondent no.2 on 15.11.1997 in favour of respondent no.1 as well as the relief for permanent injuction in respect of property in suit, which is part of plot nos. 583, 407 and 799 . The plaintiffs have taken a plea that the property originally belongs to Bhawani, husband of the testator Smt. Ramrati coupled with four daughters, namely, Shakuntala, Hardei , Rampati and Gomti. Plaintiff no. 2 and 4 are sons of Hardai ( since deceased) . Plaintiff no.1 is the daughter of Ramrati and plaintiff no.2 is another daughter of Ramrati.The property was ancestral property of Bhawani and after his death, his wife Smt. Ramrati became the owner of the property and after death of Ramrati, her

¶14

SAPL No. 204 of 2025

¶15

¶16

four daughters inherited 1/4 share of the property. Smt. Ramrati have became old and infirm and was unable to walk , respondent no.1 Hari Shanker took advantage of her peculiar condition, took her at Tehsil Nighasan on pretext of getting her old age pension and got the Will-deed executed and registered. No reason has been shown in the Will-deed as to why the daughters of Smt. Ramrati are executed and instead she bequeathed her entire property in favour of her husband, respondent no.1. The Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances. Ramrati had executed a will-deed in favour of one Sanjay Srivastava and the plaintiff has also executed will-deed in favour of defendant no.3 / Paramjit Singh. It is also pleaded in the plaint that it is possible that will-deed has been executed by producing imposter in place of Ramrati.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff and cancelled the Will-deed dated 15.11.1997 and issued permanent injunction against defendant nos. 1 and 2 and the counter claim filed by defendent no.3/ Parmjit against defendant nos. 1 and 2.

¶18

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court, the original defendants, namely, Rampati, Gomti,Vishram and Sonu filed civil appeal before the District Judge, which was allowed by impugned order dated 27.08.2025 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as well as counter claim filed by defendant no.3/ Paramjit Singh.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned appellate court committed error of law which is apparent on the face of record in shifting the burden of proof in a legal manner from the propounder of the impugned Will-deed to the plaintiffs, who have assailed the same and sought cancellation in original suit. He also submits that learned appellate court has failed to appreciate the fact that Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances. No attesting witness was produced by the defendants to prove its authenticity. Now two attesting witnesses namely, Krishna Kumar and Sarju are said to have died. He further submits that unless the propounder of Will discharges it onus of removing suspicious circumstances will cannot be treated as proved and genuine . The beneficiary is sister-in-law of the testatrix . Thus, she was

¶20

SAPL No. 204 of 2025

¶21

¶22

standing in confidence with testator, who is said to have been living alongwith her wife.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no substantial question of law has arose in the second appeal and issues of fact have already been decided by the appellate court and all the attending circumstances of the case are duly addressed by learned appellate court. The second appeal shall not lie on the question of fact as whatever contention is being made on behalf the appellant relates to questions of fact.

¶24

He lastly submitted that the plaintiff has himself failed to discharge his own burden to proof the plaint averments are uncertain and a registered will-deed cannot be set aside on flimsy and uncertain grounds.

¶25

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the appeal is admitted on following substantial question of law:-

¶26

(1) Whether the Will-deed assailed by plaintiffs and propounded by defendants is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and in that situation the burden of proof lies on propounder of the Will i.e. defendants/beneficiary to prove the Will by producing atleast one attesting witness or otherwise under law as provided under Section 68-A of the Evidence Act.

¶27

(2) Whether the findings given by learned trial court in favour of plaintiff that he has proved the grounds taken in the plaint, are sufficient to cancel the Will executed by Rampati in favour of respondent no.1 .

¶28

(3) Whether the findings and reasoning given by learned appellate court are perverse and if so, it requires interference in the second appeal.

¶29

Summon the lower court record.

¶30

Issue notice to respondent no. 3 to 5 at an early date which shall be served through District Judge concerned.

¶31

Steps be taken within ten days

¶32

SAPL No. 204 of 2025

¶33

¶34