Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Akshay Kumar vs Smt.Ramrati Pandey on 6 April, 2017

                                                 1
                                      W.P.No.1820/2011

    (Akshay Kumar Vs. Smt. Ramrati Pandey & Ors.)

06.04.2017
     Shri Anand Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
     Shri Prashant Sharma and Shri Sarvesh Sharma,
learned counsel for the respondents.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 30th December, 2010 passed by the learned Board of Revenue in Revision Case No.1603- PBR/04.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is in regard to the property of one Shri Gauri Shankar. It is an admitted position that Shri Gauri Shankar had executed a will dated 16.04.1984 and this will has been disputed by the present petitioner on the strength of the fact that Shri Gauri Shankar subsequently executed another will dated 22.12.1998.

Learned Board of Revenue has remanded the matter to the Tehsildar to determine the validity of the two wills and also decide the issue whether author of such will i.e. Shri Gauri Shankar had right to execute the will in relation to the complete chunk of the property which is the subject matter of such will.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that validity of will can be determined in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and Revenue Courts have no authority of determination of the validity of the will so also the authority of the testator to execute a will.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rajinder Singh And Another Vs. Financial Comissioner as decided on 21 st March, 2013 in Civil Writ Petition No.3821/2011 has held that validity of will can be decided by the Civil Court which has exclusive domain over such matter and this cannot be decided by the Revenue Courts.

This proposition has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents and therefore, in view of the settled position of law that validity of the will can be tested only before the Court of competent civil jurisdiction and not before the Revenue Court, the impugned order is set aside. Parties are relegated to the Civil Court. They are free to get the claim decided on the basis of which Revenue Court will carry out the proceedings of mutation as and when occasion arises.

(Vivek Agarwal) Judge Sha