Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Krishna Gupta v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi & Others - SECOND APPEAL No. 667 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11730 (11 July 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 27

Second Appeal No. 667 of 2007

Ram Krishna Gupta


(Smt.) Shakuntala Devi and others

Hon. Pankaj Mithal,J.

Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.

The plaintiff Smt. Shakuntala Devi and the three defendants Bal Mukund Gupta, Bal Krishna Gupta and Ram Krishna Gupta are sister and brothers being daughter and sons of late Satya Narain Gupta. The dispute is about house No. 68/248-D, Rai purwa Kanpur Nagar which was purchased by late Satya Narain Gupta vide registered sale deed dated 31.7.1969 from one Sri S.N. Jaiswal. Satya Narain Gupta had died on 5.10.1982.

The plaintiff Smt. Shakuntala Devi filed original suit No. 216 of 97 for declaration that she may be declared owner of 1/4th share in the said house and be put in possession The defendant No. 1 Bal Mukund Gupta and defendant No. 2 Bal Krishna Gupta, the  two brothers accepted the contentions of the plaintiff and agreed for a decree of 1/4th share in her favour by filing  separate written statement. However the suit was contested by the 3rd brother defendant No. 3 Ram Krishna Gupta. He alleged that house in dispute was actually purchased by him out of his income vide sale deed dated 31.7.1969 in the name of his father. The father had executed a will in his favour on 5.10.1982 bequeathing the entire house to him exclusively. Therefore, the plaintiff Smt. Shakuntala Devi is not entitled to any declaration.

The Trial Court though accepted that the plaintiff Smt. Shakuntala Devi is entitled to 1/4th share in the house erroneously dismissed the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff Smt. Shakuntala Devi preferred Civil Appeal No. 139 of 2002 and one another Civil appeal No. 130 of 2002 was preferred by defendant No.1 Bal Mukund. The two appeals were heard together and were allowed by the common judgment and order of the Appellate Court dated 9.3.2007 and the suit for declaration and possession of 1/4th share in the house in dispute has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff Smt. Shakuntala Devi. It is against the appellate judgement, order and decree that this second appeal has been preferred by defendant No.3 Ram Kishan Gupta.

The appellate court below has considered the entire evidence and has recorded a categorical finding that will dated 5.10.1982 is not a genuine document and is not validly executed by late Satya Narain Gupta. The court also recorded that it is admitted to the parties that Satyna Narain Gupta was brought and admitted to the emergency ward of the Hylet hospital which is part of the G.S.V.M., Medical college, Kanpur in a serious condition on 3.10.1982. The Medical Record Officer of the G.S.V.M., Medical College on the application of defendant Nos. 1and 2 have certified on the basis on record that Satya Narain Gupta died in emergency ward of the hospital at 3 a.m., early morning on 5.10.1982. Therefore, the entire story step up by the defendant No. 3 that the will was typed out on the dictates of Satya Narain in the hospital at about 8 a.m., in the morning on 5.10.1982 is false and unbelievable. The courts further record that there is no evidence on record to establish that Satya Narain Gupta ever regained consciousness after operation was performed upon him. The aforesaid findings are pure findings of fact which have been recorded by the appellate court below after careful consideration of the entire evidence. The counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any perversity in the said findings. The will set up by defendant No. 3 on the face of it is unnatural and has been executed in suspicious circumstances. Therefore, it has rightly been disbelieved by the courts below.

No other aspect of the matter has been raised and pressed.

It may not be out of context to state that despite the will being set up by the defendant No. 3 and being disputed by the plaintiff and other defendants, the defendant No. 3 never applied for probate.

No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.