{"id":5292,"date":"2025-07-24T06:24:41","date_gmt":"2025-07-24T06:24:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292"},"modified":"2025-07-24T06:24:41","modified_gmt":"2025-07-24T06:24:41","slug":"metpalli-lasum-baisince-dead-and-others-appellantsversusmetapalli-muthaihd-bylrs-respondentswithcivil-appeal-nos-5922-of-2015","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292","title":{"rendered":"METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS \u2026APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. \u2026RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5921 OF 2015
METPALLI LASUM BAI
(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS \u2026APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
METAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BY
LRS. \u2026RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Heard.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. These two appeals arise out of rival claims of the
    legal representatives of late Metpalli Rajanna over a
    Signature Not Verified
    Digitally signed by
    NEETU KHAJURIA
    Date: 2025.07.21
    17:54:21 IST
    Reason:
    1
    VERDICTUM.IN
    chunk of land admeasuring 4 acres and 16 guntas
    located at village Dasnapur.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. For the sake of convenience, the genealogical
    table of the parties is reproduced hereinbelow: –
    \u201cMetpalli Ramanna
    (died pre-1949)
    |
    |
    Metpalli Rajanna
    (died in 1983)
    |
    _____<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>|_____<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>
    | |
    First Marriage Second Marriage
    (with Narsamma, who (with Lasum Bai,
    predeceased Rajanna) Plaintiff, died 2015)
    | |
    |__<\/em><\/strong><\/em> No Children
    | |
    Muthaiah Rajamma
    (D1, died in 2014) (D2, died during appeal)\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for
    disposal of the appeals are as below.
    4.1. The original land holder i.e., Metpalli Ramanna
    died intestate prior to 1949. The total landed property
    owned by Metpalli Ramanna is described below: –
    2
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    Survey
    Nos.
    Village Description of
    Properties
    28 Dasnapur Ac. 12-32 Guntas Dry
    Land.
    6 Mavala Ac. 1-25 Guntas Wet
    Land.
    9 Mavala Ac. 1-13 Guntas Wet
    Land.
    1\/84 Savaragaon Ac. 2-34 Guntas Dry
    Land.
    Total 18 acres 06 guntas
    4.2. Metpalli Rajanna, the legal heir of Ramanna
    married Narsamma and from their wedlock, two
    children, namely, Muthaiah1 and Rajamma were
    born. Narsamma died during the lifetime of M.
    Rajanna who contracted second marriage with
    Lasum Bai2 who did not bear any child. M. Rajanna
    expired in the year 1983 and his daughter Rajamma
    also died intestate on which, a dispute over the right
    1 Hereinafter, referred to as \u201cdefendant-Muthaiah\u201d.
    2 Hereinafter, referred to as \u201cplaintiff-Lasum Bai\u201d.
    3
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    to property arose between plaintiff-Lasum Bai on the
    one side and defendant-Muthaiah on the other.
    4.3. As per the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, M. Rajanna
    anticipated the disputes between her and his son
    from the 1st marriage i.e., defendant-Muthaiah and to
    avoid the same, he made an oral family arrangement
    distributing his properties as below: –
    Lasum Bai
    (2nd wife of M. Rajanna)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Sy. No. 28 of Dasnapur Village-
    Ac. 6-16 Gts out of Ac.12-32 Gts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. 1\/3rd portion of Sy. Nos. 6 & 9
    Mavala Village, out of Ac. 2-38 Gts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. Cattle shed bearing Panchayat
    No. 3-4 situated at Savaragaon
    Village.
    Muthaiah 1. Sy. No. 28 of Dasnapur Village-
    Ac. 6-16 Gts out of Ac.12-32 Gts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. 1\/3rd portion of Sy. Nos. 6 & 9
    Mavala Village, out of Ac. 2-38 Gts.
    Rajamma
    (widowed daughter)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. Sy. No. 1\/84 of Savaragaon
    Village, Ac. 2-34 gts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  10. 1\/3rd portion of Sy. Nos. 6 & 9
    Mavala Village., out of Ac. 2-38 Gts.
    4.4. M. Rajanna also executed a registered Will in
    favour of plaintiff-Lasum Bai recognizing the share of
    defendant-Muthaiah in the joint family properties.
    The said Will was registered on 24th July, 1974.
    4
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    4.5. The case set up on behalf of plaintiff-Lasum Bai
    in the suit was that she was granted the rights over
    6 acres 16 guntas from the chunk of land in Survey
    No. 28 of the Village Dasnapur which was located
    towards the north of the undivided plot of land
    whereas, defendant-Muthaiah was granted 6 acres
    16 guntas of land towards south of the said plot. The
    said plot is the bone of contention between the
    parties.
    4.6. Admittedly, the plaintiff-Lasum Bai sold two
    acres of land from her purported share to one
    Sanjeeva Reddy vide registered sale deed dated 27th
    August, 1987. The said registered sale deed was
    never questioned before any forum and remains
    unchallenged. The plaintiff-Lasum Bai had entered
    into another agreement on 15th July, 1987, for selling
    her remaining 4 acres and 16 guntas land located in
    Survey No. 28 of the Dasnapur Village3 to one
    Janardhan Reddy.
    4.7. Aggrieved by this agreement, defendant-
    Muthaiah filed an injunction suit being Original Suit
    3 Hereinafter, referred to as \u201cdisputed property\u201d.
    5
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    No. 101 of 1987 seeking an injunction against
    plaintiff-Lasum Bai and to restrain her from selling
    the properties which came to her share under the
    registered Will including the plot admeasuring 4
    acres 16 guntas. Vide judgment and decree dated 6th
    July, 1990, the said injunction suit was decreed in
    favour of defendant-Muthaiah. However, it was
    clearly recorded in the judgment of the District
    Munsif, Adilabad that the title of plaintiff-Lasum Bai
    was not being examined in the said injunction suit
    and it would be open for her to file a separate suit for
    declaration of title since she was claiming ownership
    over the plot in question.
    4.8. Accordingly, plaintiff-Lasum Bai filed a suit
    being Original Suit No. 2 of 1991 for declaration of
    her title over the suit schedule properties i.e., the
    properties which came to her share under the
    registered Will4
    .
    4.9. Defendant-Muthaiah set up a case in his
    written statement that the properties were joint
    ancestral properties and as Metpalli Rajanna died
    4 Hereinafter, referred to as \u201csuit schedule properties\u201d.
    6
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    intestate in the year 1983, he became the sole co-
    parcener of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
    My grandfather Ramanna performed my
    marriage and the marriage of my elder sister 2nd
    4.10. Plaintiff-Lasum Bai based her claim on the
    registered Will dated 24th July, 1974 which was
    marked as Ext.-A1. She examined two witnesses in
    support of her case. Defendant-Muthaiah appeared
    and deposed as DW-1 and in his statement, he made
    some significant admissions. The relevant extracts
    from his deposition are quoted hereinbelow: –
    \u201cChief Examination:
    defendant. 2nd defendant is a widow and she is
    residing with me. There were no divisions of the
    properties during the life time of my father. My
    father and myself were residing jointly. Myself
    and my father were jointly cultivating the
    properties mentioned by me. My father did not
    execute any will. My father had not shown any
    will to me, 2nd defendant and to the villagers. I
    am presently residing in Savaragaon
    village. Since 12 years I am living separately
    from plaintiff. We are living separately
    because my wife, is not on good terms with
    the plaintiff. My father in order to save the
    family from disputes allowed my mother
    plaintiff to cultivate some part of the
    agricultural lands. In Dist. Munsiffs court,
    Adilabad I filed a suit against the present
    plaintiff and in that suit, she came forward with
    the plea that my father had executed a will. My
    father had not executed any will. The will is a got
    up document. I have five daughters. 3 of them
    7
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    are married. In order to meet the expenses of
    my daughters marriage I converted the land
    at Dasnapur into plots and (sic) I sold about
    10 plots @ Rs. 5,000\/- to Rs. 7,000\/ per plot.
    The size of the plot is 40 to 50 feet. The
    contention of the plaintiff that she is
    cultivating Dasnapur land and Mavala land is
    not correct. She has given those lands on
    batai basis to others. Cattle, gold, silvers, cart
    and Nizam coins and other movable properties is
    with my mother i.e. plaintiff. Her claim that my
    father had executed a will deed in her favour and
    that she is the rightful owner of all the properties
    is not true. When my father allowed the plaintiff
    to cultivate the lands to avoid family disputes as
    state of my father’s health was not good.
    Cross Examination for the plaintiff:
    \u2026\u2026 My father allowed me to cultivate half of
    the land on the Southern side. My father
    asked her to cultivate 4 guntas of land in
    Mavala and asked me to cultivate 6 guntas in
    Mavala. My father made this arrangement on
    the date of his death (Arrangement relating to
    my cultivation on the Southern side and the
    plaintiff on the Northern side in Mavala
    village). My father did this arrangement in the
    presence of elders. There were no elders
    witness again says. I do not know whether my
    father made arrangement about 20 years back
    asking my mother to cultivate half of the
    land in Dasnapur on Northern side\u2026\u2026.
    I have sold plots in Dasnapur on the southern
    side which were under my occupation. It is
    true that plaintiff sold 2 acres of land in
    Northern portion of Dasnapur land to one P.
    Sanjeeva Reddy under registered sale deed.
    Those 2 acres of land is in possession of
    Sanjeeva Reddy even before I filed the suit.
    8
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    The 3rd defendant has been cultivating 4 acres
    16 guntas in Dasnapur village which was in
    possession of the plaintiff since (sic) the time
    of my filing the suit in Munsiff’s court. My
    mother has not sold Ac. 4-16 guntas to
    Janardhan Reddy 3rd defendant\u2026..
    I have come to know that patta for the land in
    Dasnapur to the extent of half is in the name of
    the plaintiff. This I came to know after filing the
    suit in Munsiffs office. I came to know that she
    filed Pahanies in the Munsiffs court when I filled
    the suit in the court, I came to know that she
    filed Pahanies in the Munsiffs court when I filed
    the suit in that court, showing that she was
    holding patta to the extent of half. I have shown
    myself as pattadar to the extent of half of the
    entire extent of the southern side. \u2026\u2026. My
    father literate. I can identify the signature of
    my father. The signatures shown to me in Ex.
    A-1 signatures in all the sheets (6) are that of
    my father.\u201d
    (Emphasis supplied)
    4.11. The suit filed by plaintiff-Lasum Bai came to
    be decreed by the District Judge, Adilabad5 vide
    judgment and decree dated 15th November, 1994 with
    the following pertinent findings: –
    i. That the plaintiff-Lasum Bai had
    established her case that M. Rajanna had
    5 Hereinafter, referred to as \u201ctrial Court\u201d.
    9
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    ii. executed the Will (Ext.-A1) in a sound
    disposing state of mind.
    That in absence of any evidence to the
    contrary, the admission of the first
    defendant that M. Rajanna had allowed
    defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to cultivate their
    respective portions of land, distinct from
    each other and that they had been in
    exclusive possession over their respective
    portions of land and made it clear that the
    family arrangement pleaded by the
    plaintiff-Lasum Bai was true.
    4.12. With these conclusions arrived at after
    thorough appraisal of evidence on record, the trial
    Court proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the
    plaintiff-Lasum Bai and granted a declaration that
    the plaintiff-Lasum Bai was the true owner and had
    exclusive title over the suit schedule properties
    mentioned in the plaint and also granted her
    permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 1 and
    2 i.e., defendant-Muthaiah and his sister, Rajamma.
    4.13. Being aggrieved, the defendant-Muthaiah,
    along with his sister, Rajamma preferred an appeal
    10
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    being Appeal Suit No. 178 of 1995 in the High Court
    of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad6. The
    High Court, vide judgment dated 23rd January, 2014
    allowed the appeal in part and set aside the trial
    Court\u2019s judgment and decree dated 15th November,
    1994 holding that the defendant-Muthaiah was
    entitled to 3\/4th share and the plaintiff-Lasum Bai
    was entitled to only 1\/4th share in the suit schedule
    properties upon death of M. Rajanna and Rajamma
    and restricted the plaintiff-Lasum Bai\u2019s entitlement
    only to that extent. Vide the impugned judgment, the
    High Court determined the rights of the parties in the
    following terms: –
    \u201c31) In the result, the appeal is allowed in part
    to the extent, while setting aside the trial Court’s
    decree and judgment in granting declaration of
    title and injunction for entire plaint schedule
    properties of the present suit in favour of the
    plaintiff (appeal-1st respondent Lasumbai);
    however, by holding that as those are part of the
    joint family properties of 1st defendant who got
    3\/4th share and the plaintiff got 1\/4th share from
    death of Rajanna and from death of Rajamma
    respectively, the plaintiff’s entitlement is only to
    that extent so to declare her title with no relief of
    injunction since undivided, thus by granting
    preliminary decree for partition for said shares of
    plaintiff and 1st defendant respectively, so as to
    enable them to apply for final decree for division
    6 Hereinafter, referred to as \u201cHigh Court\u201d.
    11
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    of the entire properties in which the plaint
    schedule are part and in so dividing plaintiff’s
    1\/4th share to consider to the extent possible in
    the plaint schedule respective items by equity for
    allotment in S.No.28\/1 of Dasnapur village
    Southern side 1\/4th out of the total extent of
    Ac.12-31 guntas, firstly upon the vendee for
    Ac.2-00 therein and for any other extent to claim
    by the 3rd defendant subject to enforcement of
    the so called contract for sale between plaintiff
    and said 3rd defendant; so also subject to proof
    of alienations in other extents to claim such
    equities by such vendees out of the 1\/4th share
    of the plaintiff while dividing so to allot. There is
    no order as to costs in the appeal.\u201d
    4.14. The said judgment of the High Court has been
    challenged by plaintiff-Lasum Bai (appellant No. 1)
    and appellants Nos. 2-6 being the legal
    representatives of the purchaser i.e., Janardhan
    Reddy before this Court by way of Civil Appeal No.
    5921 of 2015. However, plaintiff-Lasum Bai
    (appellant No. 1) died on 17th January, 2015 without
    any legal representatives. Upon her death, appellants
    Nos. 2-6 being the legal representatives of Janardhan
    Reddy preferred an application under Order XXII
    Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
    permission to represent the estate of plaintiff-Lasum
    Bai to the extent of 4 acres and 16 guntas i.e., the
    portion of plot located in Survey No. 28 of the
    Dasnapur Village which was purportedly sold by
    12
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    plaintiff-Lasum Bai to Janardhan Reddy vide
    registered sale deed dated 22nd November, 1994.
    4.15. Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 came to be filed
    by the legal representatives of defendant-Muthaiah
    who have challenged the direction of the High Court
    granting 1\/4th share of the suit scheduled property to
    plaintiff-Lasum Bai.
    Submissions on behalf of the appellants: –<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  11. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel
    appearing for the appellants being the legal
    representatives of Janardhan Reddy and
    representing the estate of plaintiff-Lasum Bai,
    vehemently and fervently contended that even going
    by the genealogy of the parties and assuming that the
    Will (Ext.-A1) was not in existence, the plaintiff-
    Lasum Bai would get 1\/3rd share of the properties
    owned by M. Rajanna which would be much more
    than the area of the disputed property.
    5.1. He further urged that the registered Will (Ext.-
    A1) has been proved by leading unimpeachable
    evidence. The defendant-Muthaiah admitted the
    signatures of M. Rajanna on the Will and thus,
    13
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    undeniably the plaintiff-Lasum Bai inherited the suit
    schedule property under the said Will and the sale
    made by her to appellant Nos. 2 to 6 being the legal
    representatives of Janardhan Reddy is valid and
    cannot be called into question.
    5.2. He further submitted that as per the evidence of
    the plaintiff-Lasum Bai and the admissions
    appearing in the statement of the defendant-
    Muthaiah referred to supra, existence of the
    registered Will and oral family settlement is well
    established.
    5.3. The plaintiff sold 2 acres out of her share of 6
    acres and 16 guntas land in the village Dasnapur to
    Sanjeeva Reddy by a registered sale deed dated 27th
    August, 1987. The said sale deed though very much
    in knowledge of the defendant-Muthaiah, was never
    challenged before any forum. Hence, apparently,
    defendant-Muthaiah has acquiesced to the right of
    plaintiff-Lasum Bai over the suit schedule properties.
    He urged that the High Court clearly fell in error in
    interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the
    trial Court.
    5.4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that
    the defendant-Muthaiah had earlier filed suit for
    14
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    injunction (Original Suit No. 101 of 1987) against
    plaintiff-Lasum Bai wherein he specifically referred to
    the sale deed executed in favour of Sanjeeva Reddy
    by plaintiff-Lasum Bai and consciously chose not to
    assail the said sale deed. Thus, the defendant-
    Muthaiah is estopped by law from questioning the
    right of plaintiff-Lasum Bai to sell the disputed
    property.
    On these grounds, learned senior counsel
    implored the Court to set aside the impugned
    judgment; restore the judgment of the trial Court and
    allow Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015.
    Submissions on behalf of the respondents: –<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  12. E-converso, learned counsel appearing for the
    respondents vehemently and fervently opposed the
    submissions advanced by learned senior counsel for
    the appellants. He urged that the unpartitioned land
    was owned by Ramanna who expired before 1949.
    Thus, all properties owned by Ramanna upon his
    death devolved in equal shares upon M. Rajanna and
    defendant-Muthaiah being the two male co-
    parceners. He submitted that the registered Will
    which was executed by M. Rajanna in favour of
    15
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    plaintiff-Lasum Bai, defendant-Muthaiah and
    Rajamma has no sanctity in the eyes of law because
    the said Will was executed by M. Rajanna in the
    capacity of the owner of the entire land in question
    whereas the fact remains that the land was not the
    self-acquired property of the testator i.e., M. Rajanna.
    Thus, as per learned counsel, the plaintiff-Lasum Bai
    did not gain any legal right whatsoever over the
    property under the registered Will.
    6.1. He further submitted that the High Court rightly
    held that the family settlement could not be acted
    upon because the said settlement granted title over
    the property in question to the parties and being
    unregistered, it could not be admitted in evidence for
    any purpose whatsoever.
    6.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit
    (Original Suit No. 101 of 1987) filed by the defendant-
    Muthaiah was decreed and plaintiff-Lasum Bai was
    perpetually injuncted from selling the land in
    question. The said judgment was never challenged
    and has attained finality. Hence, the sale deed in
    respect of the disputed property executed by plaintiff-
    Lasum Bai in favour of Janardan Reddy has no
    sanctity in the eyes of law.
    16
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    6.3. He urged that the judgment rendered by the
    High Court is based on sound reasoning. The High
    Court has adverted to the prevailing facts in detail
    and reached to an unimpeachable conclusion that
    the plaintiff-Lasum Bai did not gain any right
    whatsoever under the disputed Will or the so-called
    oral family settlement. Despite the aforesaid findings,
    the High Court erred in granting 1\/4th share to
    plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the joint family properties
    which is ex facie sustainable in facts and law.
    He, thus, implored the Court to dismiss the
    appeal jointly filed by plaintiff-Lasum Bai and the
    legal representatives of Janardhan Reddy and allow
    the appeal filed by defendant-Muthaiah thereby
    setting aside the judgment of the High Court to the
    extent that it granted 1\/4th share to plaintiff-Lasum
    Bai in the joint family properties.
    Discussion and Conclusion: –<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
    and with their assistance perused the impugned
    judgment and the material available on record.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  14. At the outset, we may note that it is an admitted
    position as emerging from the record that after the
    death of M. Ramanna, the revenue entries (Khasra
    17
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    Pahunis) of the land in question were entered in the
    name of M. Rajanna. This Court has been apprised
    that as per the prevailing revenue laws in the State of
    Andhra Pradesh, these entries provide evidence of
    ownership over the land. The subject suit was filed
    by plaintiff-Lasum Bai specifically basing her claim
    on the registered Will (Ext.-A1) dated 24th July, 1974
    and the oral family settlement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  15. The Will is a registered document. The
    defendant-Muthaiah in his evidence, admitted the
    signatures as appearing on the said Will (Ext.-A1) to
    be that of his father, i.e., M. Rajanna. The Will
    distributed the properties in defined proportions
    between the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, defendant-
    Muthaiah and Rajamma (widowed daughter of M.
    Rajanna). There is ample material on record to
    establish that M. Rajanna anticipated that the
    relations between plaintiff-Lasum Bai and defendant-
    Muthaiah were not congenial and that is why, in
    order to avoid future conflicts, he divided his
    properties by way of a family settlement and
    bequeathed a share thereof to plaintiff-Lasum Bai,
    while leaving the major share to his son i.e., the
    defendant-Muthaiah. The distribution of the
    18
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    properties, as per the family settlement (regarding
    which oral evidence was led), and the registered Will
    is almost in the same proportions. The Will, is a
    registered document and thus there is a presumption
    regarding genuineness thereof. The trial Court
    accepted the execution of the Will based on the
    evidence led before it. As the Will is a registered
    document, the burden would lie on the party who
    disputed its existence thereof, who would be
    defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it
    was not executed in the manner as alleged or that
    there were suspicious circumstances which made the
    same doubtful. However, the defendant-Muthaiah in
    his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing
    on the registered Will to be those of his father, M.
    Rajanna. He also admitted the fact that the plaintiff-
    Lasum Bai was in possession of 6 acres and 16
    guntas of land, which fell into her share as per the
    Will. In this background, the trial Court was right in
    holding that M. Rajanna made a fair distribution of
    his tangible assets amongst his legal heirs by
    executing the Will dated 24th July, 1974 and so also
    the oral family settlement. We are of the view that the
    evidence available on record fortifies the existence
    19
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    and persuasive nature of the oral family settlement
    which is countenanced by the factum of the
    possession of the suit schedule properties including
    the disputed property, which was admittedly with the
    plaintiff-Lasum Bai and subsequently the purchaser
    i.e., Janardhan Reddy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  16. The genuineness of the Will is also beyond
    doubt because it not only confers the right and title
    over a part of the land owned by the Testator, M.
    Rajanna to the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, but it also grants
    a lion\u2019s share of the property to the defendant-
    Muthaiah. Had it been the intention of M. Rajanna to
    deprive the defendant-Muthaiah of the land or if the
    Will had been manipulated, then the defendant-
    Muthaiah could have been left out completely from
    gaining any benefits under the Will.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  17. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we
    are of the firm view that the trial Court was fully
    justified in decreeing the suit for declaration and
    permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-Lasum Bai
    and granting her absolute rights over the suit
    schedule properties including the disputed property
    admeasuring 4 acres and 16 guntas which was sold
    to Janardhan Reddy vide registered sale deed dated
    20
    C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015
    VERDICTUM.IN
    22nd November, 1994. The view taken by the trial
    Court being based on apropos appreciation of the
    evidence and the prevailing legal principles is
    unassailable in facts as well as in law.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  18. The High Court, manifestly erred while
    interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the
    trial Court and substituting its own findings by
    reducing the share of plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the suit
    schedule properties. Resultantly, the impugned
    judgment dated 23rd January, 2014, rendered by the
    High Court does not stand to scrutiny and the same
    is hereby reversed and set aside. The judgment and
    decree dated 15th November, 1994 rendered by the
    trial Court is, consequently, restored.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  19. Accordingly, Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015 is
    allowed and the Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 is
    dismissed. No order as to costs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
    disposed of.
    \u2026.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026J.
    (VIKRAM NATH)
    \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.J.
    (SANDEEP MEHTA)
    NEW DELHI;
    JULY 21, 2025.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5921 OF 2015METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS …APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. …RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015J U D G M E N TMehta, J.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nMETPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS \u2026APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. \u2026RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015\u2026 - Nupurljlnu<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS \u2026APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. \u2026RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015\u2026 - Nupurljlnu\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5921 OF 2015METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS …APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. …RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015J U D G M E N TMehta, J.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Nupurljlnu\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-07-24T06:24:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin_nupur\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin_nupur\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin_nupur\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#\/schema\/person\/541bd6f307d62bd5b0998456420750ff\"},\"headline\":\"METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS \u2026APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. \u2026RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015\u2026\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-24T06:24:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292\"},\"wordCount\":3665,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#organization\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292\",\"name\":\"METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS \u2026APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. \u2026RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015\u2026 - Nupurljlnu\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-24T06:24:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS \u2026APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. \u2026RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015\u2026\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/\",\"name\":\"Nupurljlnu.com\",\"description\":\"Nupur Latest Judgements & Legal News Updates\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Nupur Latest Judgements and Legal News Upates\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/cropped-NUPURLJLNU.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/cropped-NUPURLJLNU.png\",\"width\":600,\"height\":600,\"caption\":\"Nupur Latest Judgements and Legal News Upates\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#\/schema\/person\/541bd6f307d62bd5b0998456420750ff\",\"name\":\"admin_nupur\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/315560c2c20e337579bddb9dee305cd809bb03b53d52e3722b899cba001abe6e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/315560c2c20e337579bddb9dee305cd809bb03b53d52e3722b899cba001abe6e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin_nupur\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?author=3\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS \u2026APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. \u2026RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015\u2026 - Nupurljlnu","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS \u2026APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. \u2026RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015\u2026 - Nupurljlnu","og_description":"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5921 OF 2015METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS …APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. …RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015J U D G M E N TMehta, J.","og_url":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292","og_site_name":"Nupurljlnu","article_published_time":"2025-07-24T06:24:41+00:00","author":"admin_nupur","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin_nupur","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292"},"author":{"name":"admin_nupur","@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#\/schema\/person\/541bd6f307d62bd5b0998456420750ff"},"headline":"METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS \u2026APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. \u2026RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015\u2026","datePublished":"2025-07-24T06:24:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292"},"wordCount":3665,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#organization"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292","url":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292","name":"METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS \u2026APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. \u2026RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015\u2026 - Nupurljlnu","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-07-24T06:24:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?p=5292#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS \u2026APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. \u2026RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015\u2026"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/","name":"Nupurljlnu.com","description":"Nupur Latest Judgements & Legal News Updates","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#organization","name":"Nupur Latest Judgements and Legal News Upates","url":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/cropped-NUPURLJLNU.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/cropped-NUPURLJLNU.png","width":600,"height":600,"caption":"Nupur Latest Judgements and Legal News Upates"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#\/schema\/person\/541bd6f307d62bd5b0998456420750ff","name":"admin_nupur","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/315560c2c20e337579bddb9dee305cd809bb03b53d52e3722b899cba001abe6e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/315560c2c20e337579bddb9dee305cd809bb03b53d52e3722b899cba001abe6e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin_nupur"},"url":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/?author=3"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5292","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5292"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5292\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5293,"href":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5292\/revisions\/5293"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nupurljlnu.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}