LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Raj Kumari & Anr. v. Krishna & Ors.

Civil Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Civil Appeal No. 1811 of 2007)Decided 26 Feb 2015
Civil Appeal No. 1811 of 2007
Justice Anil R. Dave · Justice R.K. Agrawal · Justice R. Banumathi

Background

Late Shri Atam Parkash married Smt. Raj Kumari in 1961 (having a daughter, Nishoo), and while that marriage subsisted, married Smt. Krishna in 1970 at an Arya Samaj temple (having a daughter, Payal). By a registered Will dated 9 April 1982, he bequeathed his movable and immovable property to Krishna and Payal. After his death, Krishna and Payal sued for a declaration that they were his only heirs entitled to all his property, including pension and retirement benefits; the trial court held the Will-specified property went to the plaintiffs but pension/retirement benefits (not covered by the Will) should go to all legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, including the first wife and daughter. The High Court, on second appeal, instead held that even the pension and retirement benefits should go to the plaintiffs (Krishna and Payal), prompting Raj Kumari and Nishoo to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in giving even the pension and other retirement benefits to Krishna and Payal, because pension is normally payable to the legally wedded wife of a deceased employee, and Krishna could not be considered the legally wedded wife since Atam Parkash's first wife (Raj Kumari) was alive when he married Krishna, making that second marriage void for this purpose. On the separate question of three shops not expressly listed in the Will, the Court held they formed part of a house that was clearly described and bequeathed in the Will, so they rightly passed to the plaintiffs along with the rest of the bequeathed immovable property. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's decree (as confirmed by the appellate court), allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

A Will governs only the specific property it describes; pension and retirement benefits not covered by a Will are distributed under personal succession law to the deceased's legally wedded spouse and heirs, and a second marriage contracted while the first subsists does not make the second spouse the "legally wedded wife" for that purpose.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Property & Inheritance

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Sultan Singh (Dead) Thru. LRs v. The Financial Commissioner Govt. of NCT of Delhi

The Supreme Court held that whether a deceased female Bhumidhar's land passes to her own direct heirs or reverts to her late husband's male relatives depends on what her personal law said about her property rights on the date she died, not on the date she first acquired the land. Since the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force before Khajano's death in 1973, Section 14(1) of that Act had already converted her earlier limited life-interest into full, absolute ownership. Because she held the land absolutely at death, succession was governed by Section 53 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (which favours her own direct descendants), not Section 50 (which would have sent it back to her first husband's male lineage). The Court dismissed the appeal by the Reversioners and upheld the High Court's ruling in favour of Khajano's sons.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Raghunath (Now Deceased, through LR) & Anr. vs. Bharat Bhushan (Deceased, through LRs) & Ors.

The High Court held that the Will's operative words "my above said property" clearly referred to the whole property, not just the shop, since the testator would have used a narrower phrase like "the said shop" if that was intended. The exclusionary phrase "to the exclusion of all other legal heirs" reinforced this reading, and the separate, differently-worded bequest of another flat (split by percentage shares) showed the testator knew how to limit a bequest when he wanted to. The appeal was dismissed and the trial court's decree upheld.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

JK Paper Ltd. v. Bipinchandra Natwarlal Shah & Ors.

This is not a final decision on the main case. The Supreme Court disposed of the cross-appeals while leaving valuation and disputed possession facts for the High Court to decide. It continued the stay for two months and required JK Paper to deposit an additional ₹15 crore with the High Court's Registrar General within that period, without prejudicing either side's arguments. A timely deposit would keep the stay in force until further High Court orders; failure would revoke it and allow the landowners to pursue enforcement. The Court rejected the company's argument that a known gorge and waterlogging reduced the usable area, and barred it from raising that issue before the High Court. It requested expedited disposal of the pending compensation appeals, taking account of delivery of the remaining land in November 2025.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Vijay Pal vs. Bharat Singh (Since Deceased, through LRs) & Ors.

The High Court held that even where no formal title document exists for land in an old village Abadi area, a claimant must still affirmatively prove continuous possession through credible evidence: mere oral assertions are not enough, especially when a court-appointed Local Commissioner's report found the land lying vacant with waste dumped on it. Since this was a concurrent factual finding by two lower courts with no substantial question of law in the appellant's favour, the Second Appeal was dismissed.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Smt. Swaraj Chopra vs. Smt. Shanti Devi (since deceased, through LRs) & Ors.

The Court held that even though the agreement fixed no exact deadline for performance, the law still expects enforcement within a "reasonable" period, and under Article 54 of the Limitation Act a suit must be filed within three years of being refused performance or gaining notice of an adverse claim. Since both the demand and the lawsuit came far beyond any reasonable or statutory limitation period, the suit, and this second appeal, were rightly dismissed as time-barred.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Ashok Kumar (since deceased, through LRs Pushpa & Ors.) vs. Nirmala Devi & Anr.

The appellants argued that the property had been divided through a family partition and that the concurrent findings on tenancy were wrong. The Court found that the partition defence was unsupported by documentary evidence and was inconsistent with the testimony of the defence witness. It held that Ashok Kumar was estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from denying the landlord's title, and that the decree for possession rested on a proven tenancy and a valid sale deed. Since no substantial question of law arose, the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case