JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J :

1.Leave granted.

2.The question as to whether a purchaser of a property belonging to the deceased testator should be impleaded as a party in a probate proceedings is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of judgments and orders dated 31.08.2006 in C.M. (Main) No. 285 of 2005 and 13.11.2006 passed in Review Petition No. 393 of 2006 by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court.

3.The property in question admittedly belonged to one Har Bhagwan. He died on 03.11.1997. He was survived by his wife, four daughters and two sons. Respondents herein are daughters of the said Har Bhagwan. One of the sons of Har Bhagwan was Raj Kumar. Wife of Har Bhagwan has passed away. Allegedly, another son of Har Bhagwan was given in adoption. 4.Har Bhagwan executed a Will on 09.09.1997. Respondents herein are the beneficiaries thereof. They filed an application for grant of probate in the year 2000. Both the sons of Har Bhagwan filed objections thereto. Raj Kumar propounded another Will of the said Har Bhagwan which was allegedly executed on 30.10.1997. Indisputably, Raj Kumar executed two deeds of sale dated 20.06.2003 and 27.06.2003 in favour of one Amit Pahwa. The properties purported to have been transferred by reason of the said deeds of sale forming subject-matter of the grant under the Will. No probate was obtained in respect of the said Will dated 30.10.1997. Even no objection from other legal heirs of the late Har Bhagwan was obtained. Immediately after execution of the said deeds, the said Amit Pahwa entered into an agreement to sell dated 25.07.2003 in respect of one of the properties. In furtherance thereto, a purported deed of sale is said to have been executed in respect of the other property on 29.08.2003.

5.Appellant herein filed an application for his impleadment in the said probate proceedings. It was allowed by an order dated 24.12.2004. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court has reversed the said judgment and order on an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the respondents herein.

6.Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support of the appeal, would submit that the High Court committed a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that in a proceeding under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (for short, the Act ) the court should always make an endeavour to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It was contended that the court s power to implead a party, who, strito sensu, may not be a necessary party is wide. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on a decision in Banwarilal Shriniwas v. Kumari Kusum Bai and Others [AIR 1973 (MP) 69] as also in Seth Beni Chand (since Dead) Now by L.Rs. v. Smt. Kamla Kunwar and Others [(1976) 4 SCC 554].

7.Mr. O.P. Khadaria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondent No. 4, who appeared in person, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant is not a necessary party to the proceeding and, thus, the impugned judgment should not be interfered with.

8.Chapter I of Part IX of the Act provides for grant of Probate and/or Letters of Administration. A probate can be granted only to an executor appointed by the Will. Chapter III of the Act provides for revocation or annulment for just cause. Illustration appended to Section 263 of the Act reads as under : Illustration

(i)The Court by which the grant was made had no jurisdiction.

(ii)The grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited.

(iii)The will of which probate was obtained was forged or revoked.

(iv)A obtained letters of administration to the estate of B, as his widow, but it has since transpired that she was never married to him.

(v)A has been taken administration to the estate of B as if he had died intestate, but a will has since been discovered.

(vi)Since probate was granted, a latter will has been