Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Dismissal of Property Claim Based on Disputed Will and Sale Deeds

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 83 | 2026:CGHC:6134

Feb. 03, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a second appeal filed by Smt. Laxmi Yadav, reaffirming concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court that she failed to establish title over agricultural land in Bilaspur on the basis of a disputed Will and defective sale deeds.

Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, delivering judgment in Second Appeal No. 32 of 2013, held that the plaintiff could neither prove valid execution of the Will dated 28 May 2001 nor demonstrate that the testator, Dhaniram Yadav, possessed lawful title to the property he purported to bequeath. The Court found no perversity in the earlier findings and declined to interfere under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The dispute concerned land situated at village Torwa, Bilaspur, comprising Khasra Nos. 840, 889/3, and 895, measuring a total of 1.84 acres. The plaintiff claimed ownership through a registered Will allegedly executed by Dhaniram, who had no children and had raised her as a family member. She relied on two sale deeds through which Dhaniram was said to have acquired the land, one executed in 1961 and another in 1970.

The courts below, however, found serious legal defects in both transactions. The 1961 document was an unregistered sale deed and therefore incapable of conferring title under the Registration Act, 1908. The 1970 sale deed, though registered, was executed by Dhaniram’s mother in respect of ancestral property without proof of partition among the coparceners. As a result, the seller herself was held to have no independent title, rendering the transaction ineffective.

On the Will, the High Court agreed with the lower courts that statutory requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act were not satisfied. The sole attesting witness gave contradictory statements regarding the preparation and execution of the Will and admitted ignorance of its contents. The Court also noted suspicious circumstances, including the active role of the beneficiary’s husband in preparing the document and the absence of other named beneficiaries from the suit.

Relying on settled Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that registration of a Will does not dispense with strict proof of its execution and that a person cannot transfer a better title than he possesses. Since Dhaniram himself lacked valid title over the suit land, he could not have lawfully bequeathed it.

Finding that the appeal raised no substantial question of law warranting interference, the Court dismissed the second appeal and ordered the decree to be drawn accordingly.

Case Reference : SA No. 32 of 2013, Smt. Laxmi Yadav v. Smt. Urmila Yadav and Others; Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate; Counsel for Respondents Nos. 2.1 to 2.3 and 3 to 7: Mr. Aishwarya Pandey, Advocate, with Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate; Counsel for Respondent No. 8 (State): Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer.