Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jayasree vs Sindhu Ajayan on 20 February, 2024
Author: M.M. Sundresh
Bench: M.M. Sundresh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2697/2024
[@ SLP [C] NO.7618/2019]
JAYASREE & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SINDHU AJAYAN Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellants are the defendants in the Suit. The Suit was filed by the respondent being the daughter of the deceased seeking 1/3rd share of the properties. The appellants, while not disputing the nature of holding and the relationship inter se the parties, raised a plea of title based upon a Will executed after due registration in the year 1995. The testator died in the year 2008. The trial Court, accepting the due execution of the Will, dismissed the suit.
The first appellate Court reversed the judgment and findings of the trial Court inter alia holding that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Will and, therefore, the respondent Signature Not Verified is entitled for 1/3rd share in the Suit properties. Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2024.02.23 18:55:55 IST Reason: Aggrieved, the appellants filed a second appeal. Accepting the finding of the lower Appellate Court, the Second Appeal was dismissed on 2 facts, without even going into the issue as to whether a substantial question of law exists or not.
Challenging the said judgment and decree of the High Court, the present appeal has been filed.
We find force in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants.
The appellants raised an issue with respect to disbelieving the Will. It is for the High Court to decide as to whether the substantial question of law exists or not. If such a question exists, the High Court has to frame it and, thereafter answer it on the basis of findings rendered by the First Appellate Court, unless it finds perversity in it. This exercise has not been done as the High Court did not even go into the issue as to whether the substantial question of law is available or not.
In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order by remitting it to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court after hearing both sides shall consider the issue as to whether the substantial question of law is available for consideration and if so, answer it one way or the other.
As the respondent has been heard by us, the High Court is requested to hear both the sides, as it is dealing with a case of reversal and, thereafter, take a decision by exercising its power 3 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
...................J. [M.M. SUNDRESH] ...................J. [S.V.N. BHATTI] NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 20, 2024.
4
ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.14 SECTION XI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7618/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-01-2019
in RSA No. 1211/2018 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At
Ernakulam)
JAYASREE & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SINDHU AJAYAN Respondent(s)
Date : 20-02-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Malini Poduval, AOR Ms. Babita Sant, Adv.
Mr. Savya Sachi Narayanan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, AOR Mr. Biju Joseph, Adv.
Mr. Hardik Vaishisth, Adv. Mr. Adith Menon, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR CUM PS COURT MASTER (NSH) [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]