Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

64. This Court in the case of P.R. Hemachandra Babu and another vs. P.R. Janardhanam (deceased) and five others [2003 (2) MLJ 475] had observed that “It is clear from Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act that the Court should not consider question of title or disposing power of the property. The grant of probate to the executor does not confer upon him any title to the property. Now, the appellants mainly claimed right, title and interest in the property based upon the probated by a Court and the consent affidavits given by the other legal heirs. Probate is only conclusive as to the appointment of executors the validity of execution and contents of the Will. In an application for probate, it is not in the province of the Court to go into questions of title with reference to the property of which the Will purports to dispose, or the validity of such disposition. Moreover, a Court cannot refuse to grant probate of a will because the testator had power to dispose of some or even all of the property he purported to deal with. The grant http://www.judis.nic.in of probate is decisive only of the genuineness of Will propounded and of the right of the executors thereby appointed to represent the estate of the testator. It is in no respect decides question as to the disposing power of the testator or as to the existence of any disposable” As per the above mentioned observations, it is clear that the probate of the Will is only with regard to the validity of the execution and contents of the Will and the grant of Will is decisive only with regard to the genuineness of the Will and question of title are not decided in the probate proceedings. Hence, the grant of probate order alone will not establish the title of either Mr.Srinivasa Rao or of Smt.Padma Bai. Hence, the contention of the defendants that the probated Will shows that the suit property belongs to the family of the second defendant is not valid and liable to be rejected.

65. As per the evidence of DW-1, he had purchased the property only based upon the Will. Hence, it is clear that neither the second defendant nor her predecessors have valid right over the suit property. As contended by the plaintiff, the said Mr.Srinivasa Rao had prepared complaint Ex.B-14 stating that the original title deeds of the http://www.judis.nic.in year 1888 were found missing and no such document detail were mentioned in Ex.B-1 Sale Deed. Further, in the Ex.B-1 Sale Deed, it was stated that Mr.Lakshman Rao, the grand father of Mr.Srinivasa Rao, was put in possession in the year 1912, which are contradictory to each other. The said Will was probated in the year 1975 and no steps had been taken to obtain patta in the name of Smt.Padma Bai immediately after the Will was probated. Whereas the said patta was obtained on 06.04.1990 based on the probate of Will. The said Will copy had not been produced for perusal. Based on the probate order the patta had been changed in the name of Smt.Padma Bai and subsequently, the property was purchased by the first defendant from the legal heirs. Based upon the above said records and evidence produced by both parties, it is clear that the first defendant had subsequently purchased property without any valid documents regarding title of suit property. Whereas the plaintiff by producing relevant documents had clearly shown that the property belonged to temple. Hence, this court is of considered view that the plaintiff had proved that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff-Temple.

91. Claiming title in a negative manner is impermissible. The claim of the appellants/defendants in this case is that the respondent/ Temple has not established their title nor prayed for http://www.judis.nic.in declaration of title. Therefore, they are entitled for the suit property. If such a proposition is accepted, it is not only dangerous and the same would pave way for all such illegal grabbing of the public properties and in some occasions, private properties also. For example, if a person executes a Will knowingly or unknowingly in respect of the property for which he has no title and the legal heirs of the Testator of the Will probated the Will and claiming title, this Court is of an opinion that it is the easiest way of grabbing the Temple properties and sometimes, private properties. Such a proposition argued by the appellants deserve no merit consideration at all. Such a modus operandi, which is otherwise illegal, cannot be approved by this Court.

97. The entire perusal of the documents revealed that the appellants/defendants have consistently created some documents in their favour in order to establish that they are the owners of the http://www.judis.nic.in property. However, the genesis of the documents are not made available, so as to consider that the appellants are the owners of the suit property. Contrarily, the respondent-Temple had produced the documents to establish that the Temple is the owner of the property and one Mr.Vengoba Rao was permitted to take classes in the Temple Mandapam and such a permission was granted by the erstwhile Trustees and Mr.Vengoba Rao misused the said permission and included the Temple Mandapam in his Will and the said Will was probated by the legal heirs of Mr.Vengoba Rao and based on the probated Will, they are claiming right over the suit property, which is otherwise stands in the name of the respondent-Temple. This being the factum, this Court has no hesitation in arriving a conclusion that the appellants/defendants have not established even a semblance of right in respect of the suit property and therefore, they are not entitled for any relief.