8 September 2025 Legal Updates

S. 68 EVIDENCE ACT | MANDATORY TO EXAMINE ONE ATTESTING WITNESS TO PROVE WILL EVEN IF THERE'S NO DISPUTE BETWEEN LEGAL HEIRS: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. LRs. v. Suresh Chand and Anr.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• September 1, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts

Two brothers, Suresh Chand (plaintiff) and Ramesh Chand (defendant), disputed over property originally owned by their father, Kundan Lal. Suresh claimed ownership based on several documents dated May 16, 1996: an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Receipt, and a registered Will. Ramesh argued he had been given the property orally by his father in 1973 and had been in continuous possession since then. The father died on April 10, 1997.

Legal Issues

• Whether documents like Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Receipt, and Will can confer valid title over immovable property
• Whether the plaintiff could claim benefit under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act (part performance)
• What relief should be granted to the parties

Key Legal Principles Established

• Agreement to Sell vs. Sale Deed: An Agreement to Sell does NOT transfer ownership - it only creates a contractual right. Under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, sale of immovable property worth over Rs. 100/- requires a registered sale deed. Without a registered sale deed, no title passes to the buyer.
• General Power of Attorney: A Power of Attorney creates agency relationship, not ownership transfer. Even an irrevocable Power of Attorney does not transfer title. It only authorizes the attorney to act on behalf of the principal.
• Will Requirements: A Will must be properly proved according to Section 63 of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act. At least one attesting witness must be examined to prove the Will. Mere registration of Will does not make it valid. Suspicious circumstances around the Will (like excluding other legal heirs without explanation) must be clarified by the propounder.
• Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act: Part performance doctrine requires actual possession by the transferee. Since the plaintiff filed suit for possession, it proved he was not in possession. Without possession, no benefit under Section 53A can be claimed.

Supreme Court's Ruling

• Allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Held that none of the documents (Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Will, etc.) conferred valid title. The Will was not properly proved as required by law
• The Court granted protection to the rights of the second defendant (Respondent No. 2) who had purchased 50% share from Ramesh Chand.

'EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT' OF CHILD WITH GRANDPARENTS IS NO GROUND TO DENY CUSTODY TO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Pravin Nathalal Parghi vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

(c) Date of Decision:

• September 4, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge & Justice Gautam A. Ankhad

Facts

Pravin Parghi, a Municipal Corporation employee, was the biological father of 5-year-old twin sons born through surrogacy in 2019. Due to health complications at birth, one twin (Lakshya) remained with the petitioner while the other (Lavya) was given to the petitioner's mother (Respondent No. 5) for care. After COVID-19, family disputes arose, leading to multiple legal proceedings including custody cases and criminal complaints. The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of his son Lavya from his 74-year-old mother.

Legal Issues

• Whether a writ of habeas corpus can be issued for child custody when proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act are pending?
• Whether the biological father's right to custody supersedes the grandmother's emotional attachment to the child?
• The scope of habeas corpus in child custody matters?

Court's Reasoning

• The court relied heavily on Tejaswini Gaud vs. Shekhar Tiwari (2019) and Gautam Kumar Das vs. NCT of Delhi (2024) to establish that:
• Habeas corpus can be issued in exceptional circumstances even when custody proceedings are pending. The biological father, as natural guardian, has an undisputed legal right to his child's custody. Emotional attachment alone does not confer superior custody rights over biological parents. The detention of a minor by someone not legally entitled to custody constitutes illegal detention.

Decision

The court allowed the petition partly and directed:

• Respondent No. 4 (Police) to secure custody of Lavya from the grandmother and hand him over to the father within two weeks.
• The child's current schooling and activities should remain undisturbed.
• The grandmother can visit the child on weekdays between 9 AM-6 PM at the father's residence for three months.
• Both parties must cooperate for the child's welfare.