Laxmi Prasad Yadav Vs Smt. Radha Bai Devangan

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:48502

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

FA No. 363 of 2019

¶6

Judgment Reserved on : 03.07.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 22.09.2025

¶7

1. Laxmi Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Dilip Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Near Latelbada Chantidih, Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1. Smt. Radha Bai Devangan W/o Shri Ratan Lal Devangan Aged About 69 Years R/o Shanti Lodge Gali, Kuharpara Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2. Smt. Krishna Bai Yadav Wd/o Late Shambhu Prasad Yadav R/o Santoshipara, Uttar Colony Bhilai Tahsil District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3. Ashok Yadav S/o Late Wd/o Shambhu Prasad Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Santoshipara, Uttar Colony Bhilai Tahsil District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4. Mala Bai D/o Late Shambhu Prasad Yadav W/o Yogesh Shriwas Occupation House Wife, R/o Uslapur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5. Madhu Bai Yadav D/o Late Shambhu Prasad Yadav Aged About 25 Years W/o Deepak Yadav, Occupation House Wife R/o Schoolpara Village Saristal Tahsil Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶15

6. Manoj Yadav S/o Late Shambhu Prasad Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Uslapur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

7. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.09.22 15:58:51 +0530

¶18

2

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

For Appellant	:	Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	:	Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents No. 2 to 6	:	Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas (CAV Judgmsent)

¶22

This is plaintiff’s first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 13A/2018 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaration of sale deed dated 21.10.2016 as null and void has been dismissed by the learned trial Court.

¶23

The parties have been described as per their description shown in the Civil Suit No. 13A/2018 before the trial Court.

¶24

Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit mainly contending that:

¶25

(a) The property situated at Mauja Chatidih, P.H.No. 20, R.N.M. Bilaspur, Khasra No. 38/14, area 0.02 acre, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (CG) (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”) purchased by plaintiff’s grandfather Bholaram which is his self acquired property and vide registered will dated 28.02.2015 he has given the said property to the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff’s grandfather expired on 31.03.2015 in his residence.

¶26

3

¶27

(b) It is also the case of the plaintiff that when the plaintiff initiated proceeding for mutation of the suit property in his name then it was revealed to him that defendants No. 2 to 6 by giving false statement that late Bhola Ram Yadav was unmarried and they are wife and children of late Shambhu Prasad who is real brother of Bhola Ram Yadav has mutated the suit property on their name on 23.07.2015. When this fact was brought to the notice of plaintiff, he filed an appeal under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959before the SubDivisional Officer which was rejected on 10.01.2017 and against that he has preferred second appeal before the Commissioner Bilaspur which was pending. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendants are aware of execution of will in his favour, still without intimation to him they have mutated their names and during pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner they have sold the suit property on 21.10.2016 which has necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of the title, possession and declaration of sale deed dated 21.10.2016 as null and void and not binding upon him.

¶28

The defendant No. 1 who has purchased the suit property has filed written statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the plaint mainly contending that since names of the defendant No. 2 to 6 have been mutated in the revenue records and after conducting enquiry on satisfaction he has purchased the suit property, as such he is bonafide purchaser and the sale deed is not liable to be declared as null and void. It has also been contended that the

¶29

4

¶30

plaintiff was tenant and he was paying Rs. 6,000/- as rent to the defendants No. 2 to 6, but after purchase he is not paying rent to him even he has given house in sub-tenancy, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed and cost of Rs. 20,000/- also be awarded to him.

¶31

The defendants No. 2 to 6 have filed written statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the plaint mainly contending that the plaintiff is neither relative of Bhola Ram Yadav nor his father late Dilip Yadav is son of Bhola Ram Yadav and to substantiate this fact, genealogy has also been mentioned in the plaint and as per the genealogy Bhola Ram Yadav and Shambhu are sons of Nanku, Shambhu after death has left behind his widow Krishna Bai, son Ashok, Manoj daughters Mala, Kiran and Rekha Bai. It has also been contended that the plaintiff in absence of defendant executed will at the time of death of Bhola Ram Yadav, his physical and mental condition are so weak that he is not capable to understand the will and the will is forged, fabricated and on the basis of that will the plaintiff is not entitled to get title over the suit property. It has also been contended that the plaintiff has filed the appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer against the order of Tehsildar wherein the Sub-Divisional Officer has directed for enquiry and no proof was found with regard to marriage of Bhola Ram Yadav at village Ghutheli and have prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶32

The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence and pleadings of the parties has framed as many as 6 issues out of which issue No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are relevant therefore, they are extracted as

¶33

5

¶34

under:

¶35

^^1- D;k oknh iathd`r olh;rukek fnukad 28-02-2015 ds vk/kkj ij ekStk pkaVhMhg i0g0ua0 20@32 jktLo fu0 eaMy fcykliqj rglhy o ftyk fcykliqj esa fLFkr edku e; Hwkfe [kljk ua0 38@14] jdck 0- 02 ,dM+ dk ,dek= Lokeh ,oa vkf/kiR;/kkjh gS\

¶36

2- D;k izfroknh Øekad 02 ls 06 ds }kjk izfroknh Øekad 01 dks oknHkwfe ds laca/k esa dh x;h jftLVMZ foØ; i= fnukad 21-10-2016 'kwU; ,oa voS/k gS\

¶37

4- D;k oknh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr iathd`r olh;rukek fnukad 28-02-2015 QthZ ,oa dwVjfpr gS\

¶38

5- D;k izfroknh Øekad 01 ln~Hkkfod Øsrk gS**

¶39

The plaintiff to substantiate his case has exhibited the documents: Certified copy of Will (Exhibit P/1), Information regarding lost documents (Exhibit P/2), Registered information letter (Exhibit P/3), Reply to the registered information letter (Exhibit P/4) and Postal receipt (Exhibit P/5). The plaintiff to substantiate his case has examined himself as PW-1, Surendra Kumar Yadav (PW-2), Sharad Yadav (PW-3) and Pavren Minj (PW-4). The defendants to substantiate their case have exhibited Sale deed (Exhibit - D/1), Power of Attorney (Exhibit - D/2), Agreement (Exhibit - D/3), Public Notice (Exhibit - D/4), Khasra (Exhibit - D/5), B-1, Kistbandi (Exhibit - D/6), Rin Pustika (Exhibit - D/7), Receipt of Property Tax (Exhibit - D/8), Order of Name transfer (Exhibit - D/9), Receipt of Property Tax (Exhibit - D/10), Original Sale deed (Exhibit - D/11), Death Certificate (Exhibit - D/12), Certified copy of Meeting at Gram Panchayat Ghutheli (Exhibit - D/13), Panchnama (Exhibit - D/14), Enquiry Report (Exhibit - D/15), Order sheet dated 16.02.2017 (Exhibit - D/16), Photographs (Exhibit - D/17) and Bone Burial Certificate (Exhibit - D/18). To substantiate his case defendants

¶40

6

¶41

have Jay Ausariya (DW-1), Omprakash Dewangan (DW-2), Krishnabai Yadav (DW-3), examined Banshilal Sahu (DW-4), Mala Yadav (DW-5), J.K.P. Patanwar (DW-6) and Dhruw Lal Kotwar (DW7).

¶42

The plaintiff examined himself by way of an affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC wherein in his examination-in-chief has reiterated the stand taken by him in the plaint. The witness was cross-examined wherein he has denied that he has typed the will and voluntarily stated that as per the statement of Bhola Ram Yadav, the lawyer has typed the will. He has also admitted that the first page and third page of will are computerized type setting and page No. 2 is manually typed and also denied that last rituals of Bhola Ram Yadav have been performed by him not by the defendants. He has also admitted that the witnesses of will Surendra Kumar Yadav (PW-2) and Sharad Yadav (PW-3) are his relatives. Surendra Kumar Yadav (PW-2) who was witness of the will, in his examination-in-chief has admitted that before him only the executant of the will has put his thumb impression after hearing and after reading it. The said witness has cross-examined by the defendants wherein he has admitted deceased Bhola Ram Yadav was not resident of Telikot Kharsia. He has also admitted that whether deceased was illiterate or literate was not known to him and will was return to village Telikot in the house of Laxmi Prasad Yadav. He has also admitted that there was no computer in the house of plaintiff and he is not aware who has taken the will for registration to the Registrar is not known to him. He has also

¶43

7

¶44

admitted that the will was not typed before him and he is not aware that who has done the documentation of the will.

¶45

Sharad Yadav (PW-3) who was examined by the plaintiff to substantiate his case has cross-examined by the defendants wherein he has admitted that Laxmi Prasad Yadav has called them. He has also admitted that when he was called, at that time the executant of will needed assistance of a person for moving and before six month of death of Bhola Ram Yadav was ill or not is not known to him and also admitted that Bhola Yadav Ram was illiterate person and he was not aware whether he can read or not and he is not aware who has typed the will. He voluntarily stated that the will has been written on the instruction of executant. Pawren Minj, Deputy Registrar (PW-4) has admitted that she has not broughts the thumb register and from the thumb register it can be proved that who was present at the time of registration of the will and who has put his thumb impression and also admitted that first and third page of the will were typed in computer and page No. 2 was manually written.

¶46

Krishna Bai (DW-4) in her examination-in-chief has reiterated the averments made in the written statement and also stated that Bhola Ram Yadav was resident of Village Ghutheli, District Mungeli, he was unmarried and for livelihood he has come to Bilaspur 20-25 years ago. She has also stated that the defendants and late Bhola Ram Yadav have ancestral property at village Ghutheli and the suit property was purchased from nucleus of ancestral property, as such all the defendants have right over the suit property and no cross-

¶47

8

¶48

examination was made to rebut the same.

¶49

The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has dismissed the suit. The learned trial Court while deciding the validity of will has recorded its finding that the will has not been proved. The learned trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the will was executed on 28.02.2015 and expired on 31.03.2015 within short period and he was not keeping good health as stated by the plaintiff’s witness itself. Thus, the issue No. 4 has been answered against the plaintiff. The learned trial Court while deciding the issue No. 2 has recorded its finding that since there is no rebuttal regarding genealogy of the family whereas Banshilal Sahu (DW-4) in his statement has categorically explained the genealogy of family has held the issue No. 2 in favour of the defendants and accordingly, it has dismissed the suit.

¶50

Being aggrieved with this judgment and decree of dismissal of the civil suit, the plaintiff has preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code mainly contending that the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit on a perverse finding without considering the fact that the Bhola Ram Yadav is grandfather of the plaintiff/appellant. The finding of the learned trial Court that subsequent purchaser i.e. respondent No. 1 is the bonafide purchaser, suffers from perversity. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has not considered the fact that once the defendants No. 2 to 6 had no right to sell and have mutated their names in the revenue records by producing the false fact and statement which is forgery committed by them, as such, they have

¶51

9

¶52

no right to transfer the right of the property to defendant No. 1. Thus, he would pray for allowing the appeal.

¶53

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant opposed the submission and would submit that the trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has recorded well reasoned finding which does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

¶54

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.

¶55

From the submissions made by the parties, the points emerged for determination by this Court are as under:

¶56

“1. Whether the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that will has not been proved is legal and justified?

¶57

Whether the finding recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to genealogy of family suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court?”

¶58

Discussion and finding on point No. 1:

¶59

From the evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses, it is quite vivid that plaintiff’s witness PW-1 has admitted that the will was typed by the lawyer, but no lawyer who has typed the will has been examined before the trial Court. The said witness has also admitted that the first page and third page of will are computerized type setting and page No. 2 is manually written which creates doubt over the authenticity or genuineness of the will. Similarly, he has also admitted that the witnesses of will Surendra Kumar Yadav (PW-2) and Sharad Yadav (PW-3) are his relatives. Surendra Kumar Yadav

¶60

10

¶61

(PW-2) who was witness of the will, in his examination-in-chief has stated that before him only the executant of the will has put his thumb impression after hearing and after reading it whereas he has admitted that Bhola Ram Yadav was illiterate or literate is not known to him. The said witness has also admitted deceased Bhola Ram was not resident of Telikot Kharsia whereas the will has been executed in the house of the plaintiff. He has also admitted that there was no computer in the house of plaintiff and he is also not aware who has taken the will for registration to the Registrar and also admitted that will has not been typed before him.

¶62

Sharad Yadav (PW-3) has admitted that Laxmi Prasad Yadav has called them. He has also admitted that when he was called, at that time the executant of Will needed assistance of a person for moving and before six month of death of Bhola Ram Yadav, hes was ill or not is not known to him and also admitted that Bhola Ram was illiterate person and he was not aware whether he can read or not and he is not aware who has typed the will. He voluntarily stated that the will has been written on the instruction of executant. Pawren Minj, Deputy Regitrar (PW-4) has admitted that she has not brought the thumb register and from the thumb register it can be proved that who was present at the time of registration of the will and who has put his thumb impression and also admitted that first and third page of the Will were typed in computer and page No. 2 was manually written. The executant expired on 31.03.2015 and the will was executed on 28.02.2015 that is within one month of execution of will and coupled with the facts that the executant was

¶63

11

¶64

unable to move without assistance of any person which demonstrates that the mental and physical health of the executant was not so enough that he can understand the contents of the will. These are the circumstances which create doubt over authenticity and genuineness of the will. The will is the last wishes of the deceased, therefore, it should be free from any suspicious circumstances, undue influence. The evidence brought on record, more particularly the role played by the beneficiary lead to conclusion that will is suspicious one and the learned trial Court considering the entire evidence and material on record has held that the plaintiff is unable to prove the will. The issue of suspicious and unexplained circumstances can vitiate the will, has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shivkumar vs. Sharanabasappa reported in 2021 (11) SCC 277 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the entire law on will and broadly summarized the principle for validity of will in paragraphs 12 to 12.9 which reads as under:

¶65

“12. For what has been noticed hereinabove, the relevant principles governing the adjudicatory process concerning proof of a Will could be broadly summarized as follows:–

¶66

12.1. Ordinarily, a Will has to be proved like any other document; the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind. Alike the principles governing the proof of other documents, in the case of Will too, the proof with mathematical accuracy is not to be insisted upon.

¶67

12.2. Since as per Section 63 of the Succession Act, a Will is required to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence.

¶68

12.3. The unique feature of a Will is that it speaks from the death of the testator and, therefore, the maker thereof is not available for deposing about the circumstances in which the

¶69

12

¶70

same was executed. This introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is the last Will of the testator. The initial onus, naturally, lies on the propounder but the same can be taken to have been primarily discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of a Will.

¶71

12.4. The case in which the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stands on a different footing. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the onus heavier on the propounder and, therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the document give rise to suspicion, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last Will of the testator.

¶72

12.5. If a person challenging the Will alleges fabrication or alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion et cetera in regard to the execution of the Will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will may give rise to the doubt or as to whether the Will had indeed been executed by the testator and/or as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. In such eventuality, it is again a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter.

¶73

12.6. A circumstance is “suspicious” when it is not normal or is ‘not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person’. As put by this Court, the suspicious features must be ‘real, germane and valid’ and not merely the ‘fantasy of the doubting mind.’

¶74

12.7. As to whether any particular feature or a set of features qualify as “suspicious” would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A shaky or doubtful signature; a feeble or uncertain mind of the testator; an unfair disposition of property; an unjust exclusion of the legal heirs and particularly the dependants; an active or leading part in making of the Will by the beneficiary thereunder et cetera are some of the circumstances which may give rise to suspicion. The circumstances above-noted are only illustrative and by no means exhaustive because there could be any circumstance or set of circumstances which may give rise to legitimate suspicion about the execution of the Will. On the other hand, any of the circumstance qualifying as being suspicious could be legitimately explained by the propounder. However, such suspicion or suspicions cannot be removed by mere proof of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature coupled with the proof of attestation.

¶75

12.8. The test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience comes into operation when a document propounded as the Will of the testator is surrounded by suspicious

¶76

13

¶77

circumstance/s. While applying such test, the Court would address itself to the solemn questions as to whether the testator had signed the Will while being aware of its contents and after understanding the nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will?

¶78

12.9. In the ultimate analysis, where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, it is a matter essentially of the judicial conscience of the Court and the party which sets up the Will has to offer cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.”

¶79

The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence and considering the law on will has rightly held that will has not been proved and accordingly, answered the issue No. 4 against the plaintiff. This finding recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court, therefore, the point determined by this Court is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.

¶80

Discussion and finding on point No. 2:

¶81

From the evidence brought on record, the defendant No. 6 has categorically detailed the description of family tree which has not been rebutted by the plaintiff. Even he has not been able to establish that he is grand son of Bhola Ram Yadav. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard cannot be held to suffer from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court. Thus, the finding with regard to point No. 2 is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

¶82

Considering the facts and circumstance, evidence and law on this subject, the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the suit which warrants interference by this Court.

¶83

14

¶84

Accordingly, the first appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶85

A decree be drawn up accordingly.

¶86

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶87

Manish

Laxmi Prasad Yadav v. Smt. Radha Bai Devangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Prasad Yadav v. Smt. Radha Bai Devangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murlidhar Verma (Dead) Vs Smt. Bunda Bai Verma

Anil Kumar Shukla Vs High Court of Chhattisgarh

Umesh Kumar Vs High Court of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Ashok Kumar Mahapatra Vs Union of India

Smt. Rajkumari Gupta Vs Baishtam @ Vaishtam Kolta

Shridhar Chandrakar Vs District Forest Officer and Anr.