Duni Chand vs. Vikram Singh [July 10, 2024]
Case Overview
Duni Chand vs. Vikram Singh is a property dispute case decided by the Supreme Court of India on July 10, 2024. The main issues in this case were:
Validity of conflicting wills over the same property.
Application of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), which protects buyers who purchase property from someone who appears to be the owner but isn’t the real owner.
Facts of the Case
Original Owner:
Beli Ram owned some agricultural land.
First Will (1988):
In 1988, Beli Ram executed a registered will leaving the land to his nephew, Tota Ram.
Second Will (1994):
After Beli Ram’s death, a second will dated 1994 appeared, allegedly in favor of Vikram Singh.
Property Transfers:
Based on the 1994 will, Vikram Singh got his name mutated in the revenue records and sold parts of the land to third-party buyers.
Dispute Arises:
The heirs of Tota Ram challenged the validity of the 1994 will and the subsequent property transfers, arguing that the 1988 will was genuine and the 1994 will was suspicious.
Legal Issues
Which Will is Valid?
Was the 1988 will (in favor of Tota Ram) valid?
Was the 1994 will (in favor of Vikram Singh) genuine or forged/suspicious?
Does Section 41 TPA Protect Third-Party Buyers?
Section 41 protects bona fide purchasers from losses if they buy from someone who appears to be the owner with the real owner’s consent.
Did the third-party buyers qualify for this protection?
Court Proceedings
Trial Court:
Rejected the heirs’ claim and recognized Vikram Singh’s title based on the 1994 will.
First Appellate Court:
Declared the 1988 will valid.
Found the 1994 will suspicious and invalid.
High Court:
Agreed that the 1994 will was invalid.
However, it protected third-party buyers under Section 41 TPA, since they had purchased the land in good faith.
Supreme Court:
Heard appeals from both parties to clarify whether Section 41 TPA applied.
Supreme Court Judgment
On the Wills:
The 1988 will (favoring Tota Ram) was genuine.
The 1994 will (favoring Vikram Singh) was invalid and suspicious.
On Section 41 TPA:
Section 41 only protects buyers if the real owner has consented to the property being dealt with by the ostensible owner.
In this case, Tota Ram’s heirs did not give any consent.
Third-party buyers could not show that they had purchased the property in good faith or had verified Vikram Singh’s authority.
Therefore, Section 41 did not apply, and the third-party buyers were not protected.
Final Outcome:
The Supreme Court restored the decree of the first appellate court, favoring Tota Ram’s heirs.
The mutation entries and transfers made based on the invalid 1994 will were cancelled.
Legal Significance
Clarification on Section 41 TPA:
Consent of the real owner is essential for Section 41 protection.
Mere possession or mutation in revenue records does not give legal ownership.
Protection of Bona Fide Buyers:
Buyers must act in good faith and verify the seller’s authority.
Blind reliance on revenue records or apparent ownership is not enough.
Property Law Principle:
Fraudulent or suspicious wills cannot override genuine wills.
Courts have the power to set aside transfers based on invalid documents.
✅ In short:
1988 will = valid → heirs get the property.
1994 will = invalid → Vikram Singh’s claim rejected.
Section 41 TPA = does not protect buyers without real owner’s consent.
Mutation or sale based on invalid will = cancelled.
RELATED Blog
0 comments