Back
1998 Supreme(Pat) 535
PATNA HIGH COURT
P.K.Sarkar, J.
Lal Bhuneshwar Nath Sahdeo
Versus
Uma Kumari Devi
Appeal from Original Decree No. 57 of 1993 ;
Decided On : JULY 31, 1998
The presentation of a Will for registration by an unauthorized person does not invalidate the registration if the executant appears before the Registrar and admits the execution of the Will.
Headnote:
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - PROBATE - WILL - EXECUTION - REGISTRATION - VALIDITY - PRESENTATION BY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON - EFFECT - INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 32 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the grant of probate to the respondents, claiming that the Will was not duly executed, the executant lacked sound disposing mind, and the Will was obtained through coercion and misrepresentation. They also argued that the Will was not presented for registration by an authorized person, rendering the registration invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will was duly executed and attested in accordance with the law. The executant had sound disposing mind at the time of execution. The Will was not obtained through coercion or misrepresentation. The court also held that the presentation of the Will for registration by an unauthorized person did not invalidate the registration, as the executant herself appeared before the Registrar and admitted the execution of the Will.
Issues: 1. Whether the Will was duly executed and attested in accordance with the law? 2. Whether the executant had sound disposing mind at the time of execution? 3. Whether the Will was obtained through coercion or misrepresentation? 4. Whether the presentation of the Will for registration by an unauthorized person invalidated the registration?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the evidence of the attesting witnesses and the executant's admission before the Registrar to hold that the Will was duly executed and attested. 2. The court found no evidence to suggest that the executant lacked sound disposing mind at the time of execution. 3. The court found no evidence to suggest that the Will was obtained through coercion or misrepresentation. 4. The court held that the presentation of the Will for registration by an unauthorized person did not invalidate the registration, as the executant herself appeared before the Registrar and admitted the execution of the Will.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the grant of probate to the respondents.
P. K. Sarkar, J.
1. This first appeal filed under Sec.299 of the Indian Succession act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th December, 1992 passed by shri Anant Prasad Srivastava, Judicial commissioner Ranchi, in Probate Case No.59 of 1986 whereby the learned court below allowed the same.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal is as follows : Smt. Uma Kumari Devi and Smt. Parvafi Kumari Devi who are the own sisters had filed the probate case for grant of probate with reference to the last Will and testament executed on 21.1.1978 by Smt. Lalin Madan kumari Devi widow of late Balbhadra Nath sahdeo, the mother of both petitioners-sisters. It is further contended that Smt. Lalin Madan kumari Devi (executant of the Will) got the properties, subject matter of the Will from her father at the time of her marriage as Sindurtari property and thus became the exclusive owner of the property. She executed the aforementioned will in presence of three witnesses, namely, Shri Chandru Singh of Village Baridih, p. S. Dhruwa, District Ranchi, Lal Shyam Sunder nath Sahdeo, an Advocate of Ranchi and shri Bodhan Lohar of Ratu Raod, Ranchi. The will was registered in the Sub Registry Office at Ranchi. It is further stated that the said Smt. Lalin Madan Kumari Devi died on 29.6.1998 in Village Baridih, P. S. Dhruwa, District Ranchi that is her usual place of residence. It is further submitted that the said executant died leaving behind the following near relatives, namely, lal Bhuneshwar Nath Sahdeo, Lal Rajeshwar nath Sahdeo and Lal Kameshwar Nath Sahdeo all sons of late Jatindra Nath Sahdeo of Village hesag, P. S. Hatia, District Ranchi. The appellants have also claimed that there is no impediment under the provision of the Indian succession Act or under the provision of any other enactment for which probate cannot be granted. Hence, they have prayed that probate may be granted in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint.
3. Objections were filed on behalf of the objectors, namely, Lal Bhuneshwar Nath sahdeo, Lal Rajeshwar Nath Sahdeo and Lal kameshwar Nath Sahdeo against the grant of probate in favour of the appellants. The objectors submitted that Smt. Lalin Madan Kumari devi was not given the lands in question by her father. The same were granted to her by her late husband Balbhadra Nath Sahdeo. Lal balbhadra, Nath Sahdeo died leaving behind the only son Lal Jatindra Nath Sahdeo, late father of these objectors and his second married wife the said Lalin Madan Kumari Devi as the sole heirs who came in possession of the lands including the suit lands. Thus the objectors are the grand sons of Lalin Madan Kumari devi, the mothers of the appellants. Thus the transfer of the land by Lal Balbhadra Nath sahdeo in favour of Lalin Madan Kumari Devi, the second wife, as stated in the probate petition, is illegal and void. It is further contended that Lalin Madan Kumari Devis father never given any lands to her during the marriage as sindurtari property since that property belonged to Lal Balbhadra Nath Sahdeo. The appellants are also having their shares jointly with the respondents. It is further stated that the Will alleged to have been executed by the executant was done through coercion, fraud and undue influence to defeat the rights of the legal heirs.
4. It appears that subsequently, the applicant-petitioner No.1 (Smt. Uma Kumari Devi)filed a petition on 7.1.1988 before the lower court to the effect that she has learnt that the landed property detailed in the petition was acquired by the State of Bihar in the land acquisition proceeding on 10.6.1991 another petition was filed on behalf of Smt. Bhargavi devi, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Smt. Chanchala devi, Smt. Shila Devi and Kumari Vijoy Laxmi sahdeo (appellants. No.4 to 8) to add them as opposite parties. They gave a genealogical table in the petition showing their relationship. According to them, the applicant-respondent no.2 are the daughters from the sec
