The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a person claiming exclusive ownership over ancestral property based on a Will must strictly prove that the Will was validly executed as required by law. The Court held that an unproved Will cannot override the natural succession rights of legal heirs in ancestral property disputes.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that anyone asserting exclusive ownership of ancestral property on the strength of a Will must strictly establish that the Will was executed in accordance with law.
The Court held that an unproven Will cannot defeat the rights that arise through natural succession.
Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi dismissed a first appeal filed by the defendants in a long-running property dispute. He upheld the trial court’s decision that declared a 1998 sale deed void, and confirmed the plaintiffs’ title and possession over the disputed agricultural land.
The litigation stemmed from a 2008 judgment of the trial court in Ratlam. The dispute concerned agricultural land identified as Survey No. 160, located in Village Badawda, Ratlam district.
ALSO READ: Do Married Daughters Have Equal Rights in Their Father’s Property?
The plaintiffs claimed that the property originally belonged to their grandfather, Kashiram. They further stated that after a family arrangement and subsequent inheritance, the land came into their possession. According to them, Bagdiram attempted to claim exclusive ownership and later executed a sale deed in favour of Rajendra Kumar in 1998, although he had no exclusive legal title to the land.
The defendants argued that Kashiram had executed a registered Will in 1983, bequeathing the entire property to Bagdiram. On that basis, they contended that Bagdiram became the sole owner and was competent to transfer the land.
Counsel for the appellants, Advocate Dilip Kumar Chaudhari, argued that the plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged family partition and that the suit property was not correctly identifiable. He also submitted that the trial court wrongly assessed the evidence relating to the Will and subsequent transactions.
Advocate Sameer Anant Athawale, appearing for the respondents, defended the trial court’s findings and submitted that the defendants’ case depended entirely on a Will that was never proved in the manner required by law. He argued that if the Will fails, the property must devolve upon the legal heirs through natural succession.
The High Court rejected the challenge regarding identification. It noted that the plaint contained a detailed description of the property, including features such as the well, house, passage, and nearby landmarks. Importantly, the defendants had also admitted several of these features in their written statement.
The Court observed that the identity of the property had not been seriously disputed at trial, and therefore could not be raised for the first time in appeal.
On possession, the Court found no basis to interfere with the trial court. It relied on documentary material, including electricity bills, supporting the plaintiffs’ possession. It also noted inconsistencies in the defence witnesses’ testimony regarding the condition and use of structures on the land.
Justice Dwivedi emphasised that a Will changes the normal and natural line of succession, and therefore the propounder carries a heavier burden to prove it.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao, the High Court reiterated,
“The burden of proof that the will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder.”
The Court held that the defendants failed to examine even a single attesting witness.
ALSO READ: Do Daughters Have Equal Property Right? : Hindu Succession Act, 1956
It further noted that the original Will itself was not produced before the court, and no explanation was given for its absence. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the alleged Will remained unproved.
Once the Will was not established, the defendants’ claim of exclusive ownership was held to collapse. As Bagdiram’s exclusive title was not proved, he could not pass exclusive ownership to Rajendra Kumar through the 1998 sale deed. The Court held that title could not validly flow from a transaction executed by a person who had not proved exclusive rights over the property.
Finding no perversity in the trial court’s conclusions, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs, thereby finally resolving an 18-year appellate dispute over ancestral property rights.