Unless Genuineness Of Will Is Proved In Civil Court, Revenue Authorities Cannot Mutate Name Of Beneficiaries: MP High Court

Recently, Madhya Pradesh High Court, while disposing of a dispute connected to Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Transfer of Name in Land Records) Rules, 2018, has held that a will without any formal proof cannot be acted upon by revenue authorities to mutate the names of beneficiaries.

The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia pointed out that revenue authorities cannot decide the question of title. The petitioners' contention that revenue authorities can mutate the name of a person on the basis of an unproved will does not hold much ground, the court remarked.

“…, in the light of fact that revenue authorities cannot decide the genuineness of the Will, the rule which permits the mutation of name of a beneficiary on the basis of Will has to be interpreted that the name of a beneficiary can be mutated provided the Will is duly proved and for that purposes the beneficiary has to approach the Civil Court for declaration of his title…”, the court laid down in unequivocal terms.

Interpretation of Word 'Will' In 2018 Rules

The counsel for the petitioners had argued that the 2018 Rules allow mutation of names in revenue records based on a Will and revenue authorities are empowered to take steps to that effect. However, the court underscored that the word 'Will' found in the 2018 Rules means 'a valid and genuine Will and not any piece of paper'. Therefore, the procedure for mutation contemplated by the 2018 Rules is not different from that of the law in force, the court further added.

“…If the submission made by counsel for petitioners that unless and until it is mentioned in the Rules that it can be acted upon only after it is duly proved is concerned….If it is directed that even an unproved Will can be acted upon by the revenue authorities, then it would mean that this Court will be giving a complete go-bye to the provisions of Evidence Act”, the court pointed out the anomalies in the counsel's arguments, given that the provisions of 2018 Rules have no overriding effect on the Evidence Act.

Accepting such a twist on the interpretation of the word 'Will' in 2018 Rules will be contrary to the basic provisions of law, the court opined.

The petitioners' counsel also submitted that anyone aggrieved by the will is free to challenge the same before a civil court. However, the court disagreed with this stance. The single-judge bench clarified that it is upon the petitioners to prove the veracity of the will by following Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act since they intend to take advantage of the document.

Burden to Prove Rests on Propounder of The Will

The bench sitting at Jabalpur observed that it is well established that a title can be acquired by way of a Will. Once a person acquires the title, the name of such person can also be mutated in the revenue records irrespective of the existence of such a provision in any law, the court added. However, there lies an inherent burden on the party making a claim under the Will to prove the document first.

“…Unlike other documents, Will is a document which speaks from the death of testator…. The propounder is required to show by satisfactory evidence that Will was signed by testator, that testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of dispositions and had put his signature on the document of his own volition”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur observed in the order.

As laid down in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma & Ors., AIR 1959 SC 443, a burden lies on the propounder of the Will to prove the will as well as to dispel all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, the court added.

The court also referred to Surendra Pal & Ors v. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora & Anr., (1974) 2 SCC 600 to iterate the prerequisites of proving a will like the examination of one or more attesting witnesses.

“…Furthermore, there may be cases in which the execution of the Will itself is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, such as, where the signature is doubtful, the testator is of feeble mind…the dispositions appear to be the unnatural, improbable and unfair, or where there are other reasons for doubting that the dispositions of the Will are not the result of testator's free Will and mind”, the court listed the doubtfulness created by various scenarios that must be tackled by the propounder to prove the execution of the Will.

Errors Committed by Naib Tahasildar

In the case at hand, other legal representatives of the testator were not impleaded in the application made by the petitioners for mutation of their names based on the Will. Taking note of this discrepancy, the court commented about the 'malafide intentions' that might be harboured by the petitioners for getting their names mutated in a 'clandestine manner'. The state of Madhya Pradesh alone was made a party to the proceedings before Naib Tahasildar.

Moreover, Naib Tahasildar has also erred by not mentioning any details about whether the will was signed by the testator in his sound mind or not, the court further stated.

“The manner in which the Naib Tahsildar has dealt with the matter giving a complete go bye to the basic law pertaining to proof of Will coupled with the fact that he even did not care to issue notice to the other legal representatives of the Testator, clearly indicates that even otherwise the Naib Tahsildar had no basic knowledge about the law”, the court made a strong observation regarding the procedural steps taken by the Tahasildar.

While setting aside the Tahasildar's order in favour of the petitioners, the court has directed him to mutate the names of all the legal heirs of the original owner of the property. Meanwhile, the petitioners may approach a civil court for declaration of their title on the basis of will, the court clarified.

The court has therefore observed that the mutation regarding the property in dispute will be subject to the final result of civil litigation.

Advocates Vipin Yadav and Raunak Yadav appeared for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Vijay Singh Yadav & Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Yadav & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition No. 2301 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 38

Click Here To Read/ Download Order