22 July 2025 Legal Updates

REGISTERED WILL CARRIES PRESUMPTION OF GENUINENESS; BURDEN OF PROOF ON PARTY DISPUTING ITS VALIDITY: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Metpalli Lasum Bai v. Metapalli Muthaih

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Bench:

• Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

(d) Date of Decision:

• July 21, 2025

Key Facts

This case involved a property dispute between the legal heirs of late Metpalli Rajanna over 4 acres and 16 guntas of land in Dasnapur village. The parties included: Lasum Bai - Rajanna's second wife (plaintiff, died in 2015), Muthaiah - Rajanna's son from first marriage (defendant, died in 2014) and Rajamma - Rajanna's daughter (died during appeal).

Rajanna had married twice - first to Narsamma (who predeceased him) and then to Lasum Bai (who bore no children). The total family property comprised approximately 18 acres across multiple villages.

Legal Issues

• Validity of registered Will: Whether the Will dated July 24, 1974, executed by Rajanna, distributing property among Lasum Bai, Muthaiah, and Rajamma was valid?
• Oral family settlement: Whether an alleged oral family arrangement was valid
• Joint family property rights: Whether the property was ancestral joint family property or Rajanna's self-acquired property

Court Decisions

1. Trial Court (District Judge, Adilabad)

• Decreed suit in favor of Lasum Bai. Held that the registered Will was validly executed and granted declaration of title and permanent injunction.

2. High Court (Andhra Pradesh)

• Partially allowed defendant's appeal, however, reduced Lasum Bai's share to 1/4th (from full ownership), Granted Muthaiah 3/4th share and set aside trial court's decree

3. Supreme Court

• Allowed Lasum Bai's appeal and restored the trial court's judgment completely.

Key Legal Principles

• Burden of Proof for Wills: When a Will is registered, there's a presumption of genuineness. The burden lies on the party disputing it to prove suspicious circumstances.
• Admission of Signatures: Muthaiah admitted in cross-examination that the signatures on the Will belonged to his father, strengthening its validity.
• Possession as Evidence: Lasum Bai's continuous possession of the disputed land and her unchallenged sale of 2 acres to Sanjeeva Reddy in 1987 supported her title.
• Revenue Records: Khasra Pahunis (revenue entries) in Rajanna's name indicated ownership rights.

Supreme Court's Reasoning

The Court held that the registered Will was genuine and validly executed. The oral family settlement was corroborated by evidence. The distribution under the Will was fair and reasonable. If the Will were forged, Muthaiah wouldn't have been given a substantial share. The High Court erred in reducing Lasum Bai's rightful share.

'SAVIOR TURNED DEVIL': SUPREME COURT CANCELS BAIL OF WOMAN IN-CHARGE OF BIHAR SHELTER HOME ACCUSED OF TRAFFICKING INMATES

(a) Case Title:

• Victim 'X' v. State of Bihar and Another

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 21, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the Case

The case involves serious allegations against a woman superintendent of a protection home (Uttar Raksha Grih) in Patna, Bihar. The accused was charged with:

• Administering intoxicating medicines and injections to female inmates
• Facilitating sexual exploitation of inmates by sending them outside to provide sexual favours to influential people
• Allowing unidentified men access to the protection home for sexual exploitation
• Mental torture of inmates

The charges included sections under the Indian Penal Code (341, 323, 328, 376, 120-B), Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, and SC/ST Act.

Legal Issues and Key Laws Discussed

1. Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act - Victim's Right to Hearing

• Legal Principle: Before granting bail in cases involving SC/ST Act offences, the victim must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard
• Violation: The High Court granted bail without impleading the victim as a party, violating this mandatory provision

2. Bail Jurisprudence - Cancellation of Bail

The Supreme Court relied on Shabeen Ahmad v. State of UP and Ajwar v. Waseem to establish:

• Factors for Bail Consideration: Nature of accusations, Manner of alleged crime commission, Gravity of offence, Role attributed to accused, Criminal antecedents, Probability of witness tampering, Likelihood of repeating offence and possibility of obstructing proceedings
• Grounds for Bail Cancellation: Supervening circumstances after bail grant, conduct of accused while on bail, Threats to witnesses, Evidence tampering attempts and Unreasoned or perverse bail orders

3. Article 136 - Supreme Court's Extraordinary Jurisdiction

• The Court exercised its extraordinary power under Article 136 of the Constitution to correct grave injustices and protect societal interests

4. Protection of Vulnerable Groups

• The Court emphasized duty of state institutions to protect vulnerable women and highlighted abuse of power by persons in authority. It also discussed the concept of institutional responsibility.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

• "Person put in role of saviour turned into devil" - Strong condemnation of breach of trust
• Grave nature of allegations - Sexual exploitation in protection homes shakes judicial conscience
• Risk of witness intimidation - Accused's position of authority creates imminent danger to fair trial
• Administrative complicity - Criticized the state for reinstating the accused to another protection home

Final Orders

Bail Cancelled: High Court's bail order quashed and set aside. Accused to surrender within 4 weeks. Trial court and district administration directed to ensure victim protection and granted liberty to the accused to seek fresh bail if circumstances change.

WELFARE & COMFORT OF CHILD PREVAILS WHEN PITTED AGAINST PERSONAL LAW: BOMBAY HIGH COURT LETS MUSLIM MOTHER RETAIN CUSTODY OF 9-YR-OLD

(a) Case Title:

• K S I Q v. I A Q

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad

(c) Date of Decision:

• 21st July 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Shailesh P. Brahme

Key Facts:

The appellant (wife/mother) and respondent (husband/father) were married on 31.10.2010. Their son was born on 27.10.2015 (9 years and 9 months old at the time of judgment). The wife left her husband's company on 10.06.2020 due to alleged harassment and dowry demands, taking the child with her to her parents' home in Bidar, Karnataka

The husband filed an application under Section 7 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of the minor child. The trial court granted custody to the father on 18.12.2023. The mother appealed this decision

Legal Issues:

• Primary Issue: Whether the custody of a 9-year-old Muslim child should be with the father (as per personal law) or mother (considering child's welfare)
• Conflicting Principles: Personal law vs. welfare of the child principle
• Application of Muslim Personal Law: Under Muslim law, hizanat (physical custody) of a male child transfer from mother to father after age 7

Court's Analysis:

1. Muslim Personal Law Principles:

Under Hanafi law, mother has hizanat (custody) of male child until age 7, thereafter it passes to father. The child being 9 years old, technically the father was entitled to custody under personal law. Wilayat-e-nafs (guardianship of person) always remains with father

2. Welfare Principle Application:

Court emphasized that child's welfare is paramount consideration. The child showed strong attachment to mother and refused to go with father during court interaction. The mother was providing adequate care, education, and had a business for financial support. The father had no fixed source of income and no female family member to care for the child.

Court's Decision:

The Court allowed the appeal and the Trial court's order granting custody to father was quashed. Custody of the child remained with the mother; however, father was granted visitation rights.

Key Legal Principles:

• Paramountcy of Child's Welfare: Even when personal law favors one parent, child's welfare remains the overriding consideration
• Parens Patriae Jurisdiction: Courts have inherent power to act as guardian of children's interests, superseding technical legal rights
• Preference of Child: Courts consider the intelligent preference of a minor old enough to express it (Section 17(3) of Guardians and Wards Act)
• Balance between Personal Law and Statutory Law: When conflict arises, welfare principle under Section 17 of Guardians and Wards Act prevails
• Practical Considerations: Courts examine financial stability, emotional bonding, educational continuity, and overall environment