JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Ramesh Lekhraj Kriplani is the husband of Mrs. Aruna Kriplani. The said Aruna Kriplani filed a petition for probate in respect of last Will and testament of Mrs. Sitabai Lalchand Jagasia vide Petition No. 668 of 1988. In that petition nobody was joined as respondent. It was filed on 18-11-1988 and the probate was granted to the said Aruna Kriplani by this Court on 9-3-1995. Mrs. Aruna Kriplani claimed in the said petition that she was the only legal heir and she was also sole executrix named in the Will. It was also stated that deceased Sitabai Jagasia died as a widow and issueless.

2. It appears that thereafter Ms. Asha Shivdasani filed a Misc. Petition No. 46 of 1999 for revocation of the probate of the Will granted to Mrs. Aruna Kriplani. Vide Misc. Petition No. 46 of 1999, Ms. Asha Shivdasani claimed that she was the daughter of Mrs. Chandravati Kishinchand Vazirani who was the sister of husband of the deceased i.e. the sister of Lalchand Narayandas Jagasia and as such she was entitled to the property of deceased Sitabai Jagasia. Ms. Asha Shivadasani claimed in her petition that when she was served with the writ of summons of this High Court in Suit No. 5079 of 1998 along with the copy of the plaint, she came to know about the probate granted by this Court to Mrs. Aruna Kriplani. Ms. Asha Shivdasani however could not get the inspection of original Will but she learnt that the said Will was forged and fabricated. Mrs. Aruna Kriplani had obtained probate without serving any citation on Ms. Asha Shivdasani. Advocate for Ms. Asha Shivdasani tried to get search of the papers and proceedings of Petition No. 668 of 1988 (Probate Petition filed by Mrs. Aruna Kriplani) and many attempts in that regard were made. However, the Testamentary Department of this Court was unable to trace out the record, and therefore, the Advocate of Ms. Asha Shivadasani could not get the inspection. It is the case of Ms. Asha Shivdasani that Mrs. Aruna Kriplani obtained grant of probate in her petition by making false disclosure and suppression of the fact and by dishonesty.

3. After obtaining probate Mrs. Aruna Kriplani filed a Civil Suit No. 5079 of 1998 for claiming 50% share in the property. Mrs. Asha Shivadasani, therefore, took out a Notice of Motion No. 2323 of 1999 and applied for urgent relief, at which time, the husband of Mrs. Aruna Kriplani was representing Mrs. Aruna Kriplani as her constituted attorney. When the motion of Ms. Asha Shivdasani came up for hearing it was revealed that the original record and proceedings of Testamentary Petition No. 668 of 1988 were not traceable. Justice S.S. Nijjar directed the office to trace out the record and submit the report in that regard.

4. When the motion came up for hearing before Justice S.S. Nijjar, Advocate for Mrs. Aruna Ramesh Kriplani took a stand that neither the original nor the copies of the Testamentary Petition were available with Mrs. Aruna Kriplani, and therefore, Justice Nijjar allowed the Notice of Motion No. 2323 of 1999 taken out by Ms. Asha Shivdasani. Thereafter Mrs. Aruna Kriplani filed an appeal against the said order vide Appeal No. 229 of 2000. The appeal came up before the Justice N.J. Pandya and Justice Chandrachud, where the Division Bench has recorded the statement of Ramesh Lekhraj Kriplani, the husband of Mrs. Aruna Kriplani because it appears that even the Advocate for Mrs. Aruna Kriplani made a statement before Justice Nijjar that neither the originals nor the copies of the probate proceedings were available with Mrs. Aruna Kriplani, her husband produced the xerox copies of the petition before the Division Bench. The Division Bench therefore, recorded the statement of Ramesh Kriplani as to from where he got the xerox copies and Ramesh Kriplani gave answer that he received the xerox copies for payment and he had not seen the original.

5. In this back ground the Division Bench placed this matter before me for perusal, necessary orders an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document