Process Of Succession Cannot Go Forward Without Determination Of Dispute Over A Will Challenged By Parties Who Will Be Affected By If It Comes Into Effect: SC
|The Supreme Court observed that when a party affected by a Will challenges it, the succession process cannot go forward without a determination of the dispute regarding the Will.
The Court upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which allowed the amendment of pleadings in a civil suit regarding the partition of ancestral property and the validity of a Will. The Court noted that determination of the genuineness of the Will is the necessary course of action in determining the issues inter se the parties.
A Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “In the larger scheme, this dispute pertains to succession. If there is a Will, it has to be honoured. If one of the parties, who will be affected by the Will coming into effect, challenges it on one ground or the other, the process of succession cannot go forward without determination of the dispute regarding the Will.”
AOR Christi Jain represented the appellant, while Advocate Prashant Shukla appeared for the respondent.
The appellant argued that the High Court allowed the respondent’s amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which was initially rejected by the Civil Court. The appellant argued that she was bequeathed the property in dispute after the passing of her mother, who had executed a Will. The appellant filed a Civil Suit seeking 1/5th share in the property, claiming that the property belonged to their late father and that the Will produced was forged.
The High Court observed that the respondent could be denied her share in the property only when the appellant would be able to establish the genuineness of the Will.
The Supreme Court reiterated that all amendments to a plaint must be allowed which were necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it did not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. “This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC,” the Court remarked.
The Court explained that “in the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side.”
Therefore, the Court noted that the amendment sought by the respondent to question the validity of the Will and held that “–(a) determination of the genuineness of the Will is the necessary course of action in determining the issues inter se the parties; and (b) given the finding of the court below that the application was presented post the commencement of the trial, it could not have been, despite due diligence, presented prior to such commencement.”
Consequently, the Court observed, “Keeping in view the above, along with the fact that without determination of the question of Will and its genuineness, the partition of the Suit property would not be possible, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the High Court, allowing the amendment setting aside refusal of the Trial Court to grant such amendment.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 726)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Christi Jain; Advocates Puneet Jain, Mann Arora, Akriti Sharma, Harsh Jain, Yogit Kamat and Kamal Mangal
Respondent: Advocates Prashant Shukla, Anushree Shukla, Charu Rajput, Aishvarya and Prabhat Chowdhary