KALYAN SINGH, LONDON TRAINED, CUTTER, JOHRI BAZAR, JAIPUR versus SMT. CHHOTI AND ORS.

KALYAN SINGH, LONDON TRAINED, CUTTER, JOHRI BAZAR, JAIPUR versus SMT. CHHOTI AND ORS.

The Will propounded was not genuine due to unnatural exclusion of testator's wife and unexplained delay in production; the sale deed was inadmissible as it was not a certified copy or proved as secondary evidence. Absence of court's permission for representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC means any member may institute suit for community property. Plaintiff failed to prove title; therefore, suit dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Kalyan Singh; Respondent: Smt. Chhoti; Respondent: Bhonrilal; Respondent: Suraj Narayan; Plaintiff: Gangaram (deceased, through legal representatives)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 December 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Rajasthan High Court Judgment Dated 14.3.1973 in S.b. Civil Second Appeal No. 201 of 1966
Outcome
Appeal allowed; plaintiff's suit dismissed.
Legal Topics
Validity of Will, Representative Suit, Secondary Evidence, Community Property Rights, Res Judicata
Civil Law Succession Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Validity of Will Representative Suit Secondary Evidence Community Property Rights +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kalyan Singh

Appellant

Smt. Chhoti

Respondent

Bhonrilal

Respondent

Suraj Narayan

Respondent

Gangaram (deceased, through legal representatives)

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Rajasthan High Court Judgment Dated 14.3.1973 in S.b. Civil Second Appeal No. 201 of 1966

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit against Bhonrilal was a representative suit barring the present suit
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff (Gangaram) had valid title to the property based on alleged sale deed and Will
  3. 3 Validity and admissibility of the Will and sale deed as evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Will propounded was not genuine due to unnatural exclusion of testator's wife and unexplained delay in production; the sale deed was inadmissible as it was not a certified copy or proved as secondary evidence. Absence of court's permission for representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC means any member may institute suit for community property. Plaintiff failed to prove title; therefore, suit dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; plaintiff's suit dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of trial court as affirmed by District Court set aside.
  • Plaintiff's suit dismissed.