Girja Datt Singh v Gangotri Datt Singh
AIR 1955 SC 34619551 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- Bhaiya Baleshwar Datt Singh died on 15 May 1933. Girja Datt Singh was his nearest collateral heir; Gangotri Datt Singh, a remoter heir who had lived in his household since about 1923, claimed under a will said to have been made on 17 March 1928.
- Held
- Gangotri claimed a ten-annas share under an alleged will dated 17 March 1928.
- Principle
- A will must be proved to have been duly executed and attested; where due execution and attestation of the alleged will of 17 March 1928 were not proved, it could found no title.
Facts
- Bhaiya Baleshwar Datt Singh died on 15 May 1933. Girja Datt Singh was his nearest collateral heir; Gangotri Datt Singh, a remoter heir who had lived in his household since about 1923, claimed under a will said to have been made on 17 March 1928
- In mutation proceedings the two referred their dispute to arbitrators, whose award of 17 January 1934 gave Girja ten annas and Gangotri six annas of the estate; the Revenue Court made mutations in terms of the award
- When Girja applied under the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 (Case No. 11 of 1936), Gangotri objected and also filed a title suit (Regular Suit No. 71 of 1938) claiming Girja's ten-annas share under the will
- The Special Judge and the Chief Court of Oudh (28 February 1947) found the will proved; Girja appealed by special leave
- The will was scribed in blue ink and the waqf deed of the same day in black ink; the attesting witnesses swore both were executed together at Tarabganj, while the scribe of the waqf deed said it was executed at Gonda
Held
- Gangotri claimed a ten-annas share under an alleged will dated 17 March 1928.
- The Supreme Court held the will was not proved to have been duly executed and attested, so it could not support his claim.
- The appeals were allowed and his objections and title suit dismissed with costs.
Cite this
Citation
Girja Datt Singh v Gangotri Datt Singh AIR 1955 SC 346Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/770752/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.