The case in question, Mangoo Singh and Ors. vs. Ram Autar (Second Appeal No. 1035 of 1996), revolves around the cancellation of a registered Will dated March 20, 1985. The original suit was filed by the plaintiff, Ram Autar, against the defendants, including Mangoo Singh, seeking the cancellation of the Will, which was allegedly executed fraudulently in favour of Siyawati, the wife of Mangoo Singh. The plaintiff claimed that the Will was obtained under suspicious circumstances when the testator, Harswaroop, was gravely ill and mentally incapacitated.
Important Legal Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. Revenue Court: A pivotal question was whether a civil court has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the cancellation of a Will concerning agricultural land, especially when the plaintiff was not recorded in the revenue records. The defendants contended that the suit was barred under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and should have been filed in a revenue court.
2. Admissibility of Secondary Evidence: Another significant issue was the admissibility of a photostat copy of a document when the original is available, with the two being at variance.
Court’s Decision on Legal Issues:
The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Kshitij Shailendra, upheld the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit for cancellation of the Will. The Court observed that the main relief sought by the plaintiff was the cancellation of a fraudulent Will, a matter clearly within the purview of civil jurisdiction as per Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
The Court reiterated that the bar under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, does not apply to suits where the primary relief sought is the cancellation of a void or voidable instrument. The High Court affirmed the trial court and first appellate court’s judgments, which had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, finding the Will to be a product of fraud and misrepresentation.
Important Observations of the Court:
Justice Shailendra made several critical observations during the judgment, including:
– On the Jurisdiction: “A suit for cancellation of a Will, which is a civil right, falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the civil court. The civil court alone is empowered to cancel such instruments, and the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act do not oust this jurisdiction.”
– On the Nature of the Will: The Court noted, “The Will in question was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, and its execution was not free from coercion and undue influence.”
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Number: Second Appeal No. 1035 of 1996
– Bench: Justice Kshitij Shailendra
– Counsel for Appellant: Smt. Shikha Singh, Ajay Shankar, Alrafio Basir, D.K. Dwivedi, R.C. Tiwari, Shashi Kumar Dwivedi, Triveni Shankar
– Counsel for Respondent: Ajit Kumar, Kiran Kumar Arora, Rahul Sahai
– Parties Involved: Mangoo Singh and Ors. (Appellants) vs. Ram Autar (Respondent)
