Second appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration of title based on a registered Will by the testatrix in favour of plaintiff's grandmother's estate. Both courts below doubted the Will due to suspicious circumstances including death within three days of execution. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2026:CGHC:1874
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 181 of 2019
SHOAIB Digitallysigned bySHOAIBANWAR ANWAR Date:2026.01.1616:29:23+0530
Krishna Lal Soni S/o Ram Kumar Soni Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Faraswan, Tahsil Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. --(Plaintiff), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - Ram Kumar Soni S/o Hanuman Prasad Soni R/o Village - Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Budhwari Bazar Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ---(Defendants), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
2 - Raj Kumar Soni S/o Hanuman Prasad Soni R/o Village Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
3 - Dwarika Prasad Soni S/o Hanuman Prasad Soni R/o Village Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh., Presently Residing At M.O. - 44, H.T.P.P. Colony, Darri, Tashil Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
2
4 - Smt. Gulaba Bai D/o Hanuman Prasad Soni W/o Bhagwan Prasad Soni, R/o Darang, Tahsil Champa, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Korba District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellant : Shri Akashdeep Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : Shri Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
13.01.2026
3
& Others). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be
referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.
permanent injunction with respect to the lands situated at village- Faraswani. P.H. No. 08, Revenue Circle Barpali, TehsilKartala, District- Korba (C.G.). pleading inter alia that a partition took place between Hanuma Prasad and his sons, i.e., defendant No. 01 to 03, in Revenue Case No. 22/A27/2002-03 before the Nayab Tehsildar, Barpali, in which Hanuman Prasad, the grandfather of the plaintiff, also received his share comprising the disputed suit lands. Hanuman Prasad Soni died in the year 2005 leaving behind his wife, Pili Bai, who thereafter was taken care of by the present plaintiff and resided with him. After the said partition and death of Hanuman Prasad, the names of defendant No. 01 to 03 were mutated along with Pili Bai in the revenue records in respect of the suit lands vide Proposal No. 24 dated 06.05.2006 passed by Gram Panchayat Faraswani, which fact remained unknown to the plaintiff and defendant No. 01. That, out of love and affection, and being fully conscious, Pili Bai executed a registered Will dated 13.12.2012 in favour of
4
the plaintiff while undergoing treatment in hospital. Subsequently, due to financial requirements for her medical treatment, she decided to sell a portion of the suit land, however, defendant No. 02 and 03 objected stating that the land stood recorded in their names. On coming to know of the said mutation, Pili Bai, the plaintiff, and defendant No. 01 were taken by surprise, and during the course of treatment Pili Bai expired on 16.12.2012. That, the cause of action for filing the present civil suit arose on 14.12.2012 when defendant No. 03 restrained Pili Bai from selling the suit land.
5
defendants No. 01 to 03, who shared all expenses. Taking undue advantage of her poor health and loneliness, defendant No. 01, in conspiracy with the plaintiff, fraudulently procured a purported Will dated 13.12.2012 while Peela Bai was in ICU, not in a sound physical or mental condition, and incapable of executing any legal document. Earlier, Peela Bai had executed a consent deed dated 18.07.2007 in favour of defendant No. 02. Peela Bai never intended to sell the land and was fully aware that the property stood jointly recorded in her name along with the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim is false, misconceived, and liable to be dismissed.
framing the issues, the learned trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2015 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Thereagainst, the Civil Appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. Thus, this appeal.
6
between himself and defendants No. 01 to 03 and separately took the portion mentioned in Schedule ‘A’. After this partition, the property belonged to Hanuman Prasad, but the family relationship was not ended. Therefore, after the death of Hanuman Prasad without a Will, his property devolved upon all his legal heirs as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and not only upon Peela Bai. Accordingly, the property was divided into five equal shares, and Peela Bai could legally execute a Will only to the extent of her 1/5th share. Hence, the alleged Will (Exhibit P-8) is not valid in law and does not give any right or title to the plaintiff. The trial Court also observed that after execution of the alleged Will, Pili Bai died within a period of three days, which creates a doubt about her physical and mental condition and hence the genuineness of the Will is doubtful.
7
circumstances, propounder has to remove them and the propounder has to establish that testator has signed the will in a sound disposing state of mind and understanding nature
and effect of disposition. In the case at hand, the circumstances surrounding the will concurrently held by trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and hence in absence of any perversity in appreciation of evidence by both the
Courts, interference of this Court is not called for.
8
perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded.
9
regarded as satisfying the test of being ‘substantial question of law’ within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. These questions, in my view, are essentially question of facts. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law which is required under Section 100 of the CPC in. In any event, the Second Appeal did not involve any substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the CPC, no case is made out by the appellants herein. The judgments impugned passed by the learned trial Court as well as First Appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all.
dismissed .
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge
Shoaib
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal raised a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC warranting interference with concurrent findings doubting the genuineness of the Will.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Leela and Others v Muruganantham and OthersRelied on¶7
(2025) 4 SCC 289 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Shiv Dayal and anotherRelied on¶11
(2019) 8 SCC 637 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Krishna Lal Soni
Ram Kumar Soni
Raj Kumar Soni
Dwarika Prasad Soni
Smt. Gulaba Bai
State of Chhattisgarh
Bibhu Datta Guru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
