The state government had made registration of wills mandatory from 23 August 2004.
The court said, "There is no requirement to register a will in Uttar Pradesh and non-registration of a will before or after the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 2004 will not invalidate the will."
A division bench of Justices Siddharth Verma and Ajit Kumar held that Section 169(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act would be void to the extent that it provides for registration of wills.
The High Court made it clear that if the will is not registered then it will not be considered invalid.
The bench passed the judgment while disposing of a "reference" sent to the Chief Justice in a petition filed by Pramila Tiwari. The High Court held that Section 169(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in so far as it requires wills to be compulsorily registered, is contrary to the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which provides that That it is necessary to register the will.Does. Option of will.
Therefore, the court held that the amendment to section 169(3) of the 1950 Act to the extent that it requires compulsory registration of wills is void and accordingly, struck down the said section.
In the Shobhanath case, the High Court had said that after the implementation of the law, it will be necessary to register the will.
But in Jahan Singh case, it was held that the will becomes effective after death and hence, it should be registered at the time of presentation.
For clarification on the two contrary views, the Chief Justice sent a reference to the Division Bench, in which the issue was briefly stated as "whether a will written before August 23, 2004 is required to be compulsorily registered, If the testator dies after the said date”. During the proceedings, the court examined whether the state legislature could, without the consent of the President, make the registration of wills compulsory by inserting a legal provision to that effect because under the Constitution, wills, testamentary dispositions and succession are subjects of concurrent lis and a.There is already a central law on the subject of registration of wills under the Registration Act, 1908.
The court said, "There is no requirement to register a will in Uttar Pradesh and non-registration of a will before or after the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 2004 will not invalidate the will."
A division bench of Justices Siddharth Verma and Ajit Kumar held that Section 169(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act would be void to the extent that it provides for registration of wills.
The High Court made it clear that if the will is not registered then it will not be considered invalid.
The bench passed the judgment while disposing of a "reference" sent to the Chief Justice in a petition filed by Pramila Tiwari. The High Court held that Section 169(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in so far as it requires wills to be compulsorily registered, is contrary to the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which provides that That it is necessary to register the will.Does. Option of will.
Therefore, the court held that the amendment to section 169(3) of the 1950 Act to the extent that it requires compulsory registration of wills is void and accordingly, struck down the said section.
In the Shobhanath case, the High Court had said that after the implementation of the law, it will be necessary to register the will.
But in Jahan Singh case, it was held that the will becomes effective after death and hence, it should be registered at the time of presentation.
For clarification on the two contrary views, the Chief Justice sent a reference to the Division Bench, in which the issue was briefly stated as "whether a will written before August 23, 2004 is required to be compulsorily registered, If the testator dies after the said date”. During the proceedings, the court examined whether the state legislature could, without the consent of the President, make the registration of wills compulsory by inserting a legal provision to that effect because under the Constitution, wills, testamentary dispositions and succession are subjects of concurrent lis and a.There is already a central law on the subject of registration of wills under the Registration Act, 1908.
