The dispute concerned inheritance rights over ancestral property measuring 18 acres 6 guntas, located in Telangana, among the legal heirs of late Metpalli Rajanna. The property included lands in Dasnapur, Mavala, and Savaragaon villages. Rajanna, after the death of his first wife Narsamma, married Lasum Bai (plaintiff) who had no children. From his first marriage, he had a son (Muthaiah, defendant) and a daughter (Rajamma).<\/p>\n
Rajanna executed a registered will in 1974, distributing specific shares of the property between his son Muthaiah, daughter Rajamma, and second wife Lasum Bai. Lasum Bai received 6 acres 16 guntas in Dasnapur and parts of land in Mavala and Savaragaon. Muthaiah challenged Lasum Bai\u2019s right after she sold part of the land (2 acres) by a registered deed in 1987 and agreed to sell the remaining land to one Janardhan Reddy. An earlier injunction suit filed by Muthaiah was decreed without examining title, prompting Lasum Bai to file a title suit in 1991.<\/p>\n
The Trial Court decreed in favour of Lasum Bai, upholding the will and her possession. It declared her as the lawful owner and granted permanent injunction. However, the High Court reversed the decree, holding the properties as joint family property, giving \u00be share to Muthaiah and only \u00bc to Lasum Bai. Both sides appealed to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court held that the registered will \u00a0was proven through reliable evidence including admission of signature by defendant-Muthaiah. The oral family settlement aligned with the distribution under the Will and was corroborated by consistent possession patterns. The Court observed that Muthaiah\u2019s conduct, including admissions of separate possession and not challenging the 1987 sale deed, fortified Lasum Bai\u2019s case.<\/p>\n
Reiterating its legal position, the Court emphasized that a registered Will carries a strong presumption of genuineness and due execution under law. In this case, the Will had been admitted by the respondent to bear his father\u2019s signature, and it was further noted that the will did not solely benefit the appellant but also conferred a substantial portion to Muthaiah himself and his sister Rajamma. This rebutted the suggestion of fabrication or manipulation.<\/p>\n
The apex Court ruled that Rajanna had the authority to bequeath the properties, especially given the revenue records showing his exclusive ownership post his father\u2019s death. The High Court had erred in holding the Will invalid and reducing Lasum Bai\u2019s share arbitrarily. Accordingly, it restored the trial court\u2019s decree granting Lasum Bai absolute title over the suit schedule properties.<\/p>\n
The sale to Janardhan Reddy, being under a valid title, was upheld.<\/p>\n
The appeal filed by Lasum Bai and Janardhan Reddy\u2019s LRs was allowed. The appeal filed by Muthaiah\u2019s LRs was dismissed. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5921 & 5922 of 2015) (Decided on 21\/07\/2025)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Indian Succession Act, 1925
\nS. 63: Execution of unprivileged wills – Registered will \u2013 Presumption of due execution -Registered will carries a strong presumption of genuineness and due execution under law -Oral family settlement \u2013 Testamentary disposition upheld where will is registered and signature admitted \u2013 Separate possession corroborates arrangement \u2013 High Court erred in treating property as joint family asset \u2013 Trial Court\u2019s decree restoring full title and injunction in favour of legatee upheld.[ Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S. 6, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 68, 69; CPC, 1908, Order 22 Rule 10. ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55519","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allied-laws"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-ert","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55519","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55519"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55519\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55520,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55519\/revisions\/55520"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55519"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55519"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55519"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}