Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Decree Upholding Registered Will and Valid Sale of Disputed Village Land

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals challenging a High Court judgment that had reduced the share of a second wife and purchaser in a disputed agricultural parcel and issued a preliminary decree of partition. The appeals arose from rival claims over a 4 acres 16 guntas portion of Survey No. 28, Dasnapur village, after competing suits, an earlier injunction, and a registered Will executed by the deceased family patriarch.

The Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015 and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015, restored the judgment and decree of the District Judge dated 15 November 1994, and set aside the High Court judgment dated 23 January 2014. The Supreme Court held that the registered Will dated 24 July 1974 and the attendant oral family settlement were sufficiently proved and that the trial court properly declared the second wife (plaintiff Lasum Bai) as the owner of the suit schedule properties including the disputed 4 acres 16 guntas, validating the registered sale to Janardhan Reddy. The Court emphasised the evidentiary weight of a registered will and the burden on the disputing party to rebut it, noting admissions in defendant Muthaiah’s testimony. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The trial Court accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence led before it. As the Will is a registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof, who would be defendant‑Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it was not executed in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances which made the same doubtful. However, the defendant‑Muthaiah in his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the registered Will to be those of his father, M. Rajanna. He also admitted the fact that the plaintiff‑Lasum Bai was in possession of 6 acres and 16 guntas of land, which fell into her share as per the Will." The Court further recorded that "the impugned judgment dated 23rd January, 2014... is hereby reversed and set aside. The judgment and decree dated 15th November, 1994 rendered by the trial Court is, consequently, restored."

Background The dispute concerned properties originally owned by Metpalli Ramanna (died pre‑1949). His son Metpalli Rajanna (died 1983) had children from a first marriage (Muthaiah and Rajamma) and a second marriage to Lasum Bai, who had no issue. Rajanna executed a registered Will on 24 July 1974 and, according to the plaintiff, also effected an oral family arrangement dividing properties so that Lasum Bai received 6 acres 16 guntas including the northern portion of Survey No. 28, while Muthaiah received an equivalent southern portion. Lasum Bai sold 2 acres by registered deed to P. Sanjeeva Reddy on 27 August 1987 (unchallenged) and later entered an agreement to sell the remaining 4 acres 16 guntas to Janardhan Reddy; that sale was the subject of subsequent litigation.

Muthaiah filed an injunction suit (Original Suit No. 101 of 1987) and obtained an injunction in 1990, though the injunction decree recorded that title was not examined and Lasum Bai was free to file a separate suit for declaration. Lasum Bai filed Original Suit No. 2 of 1991 for declaration of title; the trial court found the Will genuine, relied on admissions in Muthaiah’s deposition and oral evidence of family settlement, and granted declaration and permanent injunction in favour of Lasum Bai. The High Court allowed an appeal in part in 2014, holding that the properties were joint family assets and awarding Muthaiah 3/4th share and Lasum Bai 1/4th, while directing a preliminary decree for partition. Lasum Bai died in January 2015; her purchaser’s legal representatives sought to represent her estate under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. Before the Supreme Court, appellants (legal representatives of Janardhan Reddy and estate of Lasum Bai) contended the Will and family settlement were duly proved and unchallenged sale deeds were binding; respondents contended the land was ancestral and the Will could not convey joint family property. The Supreme Court found the registered Will and the oral settlement proved, observed admissions by Muthaiah regarding signatures and possession, and concluded the trial court's decree was justified. The High Court’s interference was set aside and the trial court judgment restored. Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015 was allowed; Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 5921 & 5922 of 2015 (2025 INSC 879) Case Title: Metpalli Lasum Bai (since dead) and Others v. Metapalli Muthaiah (D) by LRs Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Counsel (for appellants/legal representatives of Janardhan Reddy and estate of Lasum Bai) For the Respondent(s): E‑converso, Counsel (appearing for respondents)