Smt.Mukta Soni W/o Shri Sevak Ram Soni, R/o village Gondpara Bilaspur, Tehsil and v. Gokul Prasad
Case Details
1 SA No. 1264 of 1999 ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.11 18:17:17 +0530 2025:CGHC:46566 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 28.08.2025 Judgment delivered on : 11.09.2025 : SA No. 1264 of 1999 Arising out of judgment and decree dated 29.7.1999 passed in Civil Appeal No. 75-A/99 by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.] Smt.Mukta Soni W/o Shri Sevak Ram Soni, R/o village Gondpara Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilsapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus Gokul Prasad (died) through Lrs. (a) Smt. Ramkali Soni, Wd/o Late Gokul Prasad, aged about 49 years; (b) Ku. Shweta Soni, D/o Late Gokul Prasad, aged about 30 years; (c) Sumit Soni, S/o Late Gokul Prasad, aged about 29 years; (d) Amit Soni, S/o Late Gokul Prasad, aged about 27 years; All are R/o Gond Para, in front of Rajaram Mandir, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents/Defendants 2 SA No. 1264 of 1999 For Appellant :- Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate. For Respondents :- Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Senior Advocate, appears through video conferencing, with Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal CAV Judgment 1. This second appeal has been admitted by this Court on 14.12.2006 by formulating the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the will executed by Mangal Prasad Soni on 25.01.1993 was a suspicious document and did not confer any title to Mukta, is erroneous ?” (Parties hereinafter will be referred as per the ranking given and status shown in the suit before the trial Court) Brief facts:- 2. The suit property was originally owned by Mangal Prasad Soni/Mangal Prasad Sonar, who died on 07.08.1993, which he purchased from one Nathulal on 11.02.1939. Mangal Prasad Soni had two sons Sevak Ram Soni and Gokul Prasad Soni–sole defendant (died and represented through LRs., in this second appeal). Plaintiff-Mukta Soni is the wife of Sevak Ram Soni. 3 SA No. 1264 of 1999 3. Plaintiff-Mukta Soni filed a civil suit on the basis of registered Will deed dated 25.01.1993 (Ex.P/1) executed by her father- in-law namely, Mangal Prasad Soni, in her favour and as such, she is the daughter-in-law of the testator/ Mangal
Legal Reasoning
Prasad Soni, and the said Will excludes defendant-Gokul Prasad Soni and he was the son of the testator. It is the case of the plaintiff that Will was executed by her father-in-law on 25.01.1993 who died on 07.08.1993 and after the death of her father-in-law, she made an application for mutation before the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur on the basis of the said Will, which was objected by defendant – Gokul Prasad Soni and thereafter Municipal Corporation vide its order dated 20.03.1996, directed the plaintiff to get the title decided by the jurisdictional Civil Court leading to the filing of above- stated civil suit for declaration of title and possession. 4. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that on the basis of Will deed (Ex.P/1) she is the title owner of the suit property and defendant has no right, title over the suit property and defendant’s continuous possession is unauthorized, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and decree for possession and accordingly, decree be granted in her favour. 4 SA No. 1264 of 1999 5. Defendant filed his written statement stating inter-alia that the suit property is the joint family property of his father – Mangal Prasad Soni and he has birth right over the suit property which was never subjected to partition and no Will (Ex.P/1) dated 25.01.1993 has been executed in favour of the plaintiff as Mangal Prasad Soni was mentally unwell since 1985, and he had lost his memory since then. It was also pleaded that Mangal Prasad Soni did not know how to write in English and he used to sign in Hindi as done in Ex. D/1. It was further pleaded that on 25.01.1993, plaintiff and her husband took Mangal Prasad Soni with themselves from his house citing that they were taking Mangal Prasad Soni for medical treatment and got the Will deed executed fraudulently, as such, the same is suspicious document and it was not executed out of free will. It was also pleaded that Mangal Prasad Soni used to live with defendant and defendant, his wife and his children used to serve him and there was no reason to exclude the defendant from the share in the suit property. As such, the suit deserves to be dismissed. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidences, vide its impugned judgment dated 22.08.1997 5 SA No. 1264 of 1999 disbelieved the Will and dismissed the suit due to suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and further held that the scribe of the Will was not examined, there was no evidence to show that the contents of the Will were read over to the
Legal Reasoning
testator; PW-2 Suresh Chandra Shrivastava, being one of the attesting witnesses to the Will, did not know who drafted the Will and was not aware of whether the medical examination of the testator was performed. It was further held that many of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will were not dispelled by the plaintiff and there was no basis for exclusion of the defendant in the Will and also Will was signed by testator in English as against his usual practice of signing in Hindi. 7. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff had preferred appeal before First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court affirming the order of the trial Court, plaintiff preferred Second Appeal No.1264/1999 6 SA No. 1264 of 1999 before this Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short “CPC”) in which this Court set aside the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below and decreed the suit on the ground that Will was a registered document and attesting witnesses of the Will had been examined, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as claimed in the plaint. The legal representatives of Gokul Prasad filed Civil Appeal No.928/2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2025 set aside the judgment and decree of this Court passed in Second Appeal No.1264/1999 and remitted the matter to this Court for fresh consideration on merits and this is how the instant second appeal is taken up for hearing. Submissions of the parties:- 9. Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that both the attesting witnesses Suresh Chandra Shrivastava (PW-2) and Jayadaanam (PW-3) have proved the execution and attestation of the Will and there is no suspicious circumstances pleaded and established by the defendants and, as such, Will has been proved strictly in accordance with 7 SA No. 1264 of 1999 law. He would also submit that Ex.P/1 being a registered Will, there is a prima facie presumption in favour of the genuineness of the Will. In support of his submissions, he would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Sridevi and others v. Jayaraja Shetty and others 1 , Pentakota Satyanarayan and othres v. V. Pentakota Seetharatnam and others 2 , Savithri and others v. Karthyayani Amma and others 3 , Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal 4 and Kalyanswami v. L. Bakthavatsalam 5 . 10. Dr. Rajesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of defendant-Gokul Prasad, would submit that the plaintiff being the propounder of the Will has failed to dispel all the suspicious circumstances held by both the Courts below as the testator used to sign in Hindi and he was on that day i.e. 25.01.1993, seriously unwell so he was taken by the plaintiff and her husband to the hospital on the pretext of treatment and got the Will executed in favour of the plaintiff which was forged. He would also submit that the two Courts below have also pointed out the suspicious 1 2 3 4 5