Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No. 383 of 2017
(11.6.2024)
Makhan Prasad Singh ...Petitioner
vs.
Mishrilal Singh & Ors. ... Respondents
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order/Rule 10(2) read with Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 283 – The Trial Court has allowed impleadment of Intervenors/opposite parties in Letter of Administration case – parties are at loggerheads over the property of one Firangi Bhagat – intervenors challenging the claim of Ramrati Devi as wife of Firangi Bhagat whereas the petitioner has stressed that Ramrati Devi was the second wife of Firangi Bhagat and after his death, she came into title and possession of the property of Firangi Bhagat – the claim of the petitioner is as executor of her will – no doubt, a judgment in a probate of letter of administration (LOA) is a judgment in rem – however, a judgment rendered in a probate proceeding would not be determinative of question of title – but general citation issued in terms of Section 283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act calling upon all such persons who have an interest in the estate left by the deceased – only because neither under Section 284 nor under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act is the caveat or required to show any interest in the estate of the deceased, the same would not mean that anybody or everybody who intends to oppose the grant of probate would be entitled to lodge caveat – citations are issued in order to enable such persons to see the proceedings before the grant of probate and if necessary, to oppose the same – furthermore, the interest of claimed as caveatable interest must not be one which would have the effect of destroying the testator's estate – any person claiming any interest adverse to testator or his estate cannot maintain any application before the probate court and his remedy would lie elsewhere – it has been settled by the Hon'ble S.C. that Probate Court has only to decide as to whether the document put forward is last will and testament of the deceased person and was duly executed and attested in accordance with the law and whether the testator was of sound mind – therefore, any question of title cannot be gone into a probate proceeding and construction of Will relating to right, title and interest of any person is beyond the domain of probate Court, and hence the probate Court is not competent to determine the question of title or nature of ownership of the property of the testator or even the existence of property itself – learned Trial Court committed an error of jurisdiction when it allowed the impleadment of original respondent no. 3 and it stands set aside – Civil Misc. application allowed. (Paras 5 & 6)
2023(3) PLJR 233, (2008)4 SCC 300, AIR 1954 SC 280 – Referred.
Arun Kumar Jha, J. – The instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 03.12.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Letter of Administration (LOA) Case No. 14 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court allowed the petition dated 03.07.2015 filed on behalf of Intervenors/opposite parties/respondents filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Ramrati Devi filed Title Suit No. 239 of 1989 before the learned Sub Judge, Vaishali for declaration of right and interest over the suit land and also for declaring certain deed of gift as illegal, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff. During pendency of the original suit, the plaintiff, Ramrati Devi, died and in her place, the name of present petitioner was substituted. The title suit was decreed on contest in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner by judgment dated 22.11.2013. During pendency of the title suit, the petitioner filed one LOA Case No. 14 of 2001 before the learned Additional District Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur. In LOA case, one Basudeo Singh, who is the son of Intervenor-Jamun Singh, filed a petition on 03.12.2003 for his impleadment as party in LOA Case No. 14 of 2001. However, the learned trial court rejected the petition vide order dated 08.10.2010, finding no merit in it. Against the said order, the intervenor-Basudeo Singh moved before this Court by filing CWJC No. 7321 of 2010, which was dismissed on 28.09.2011. Undeterred by the dismissal of the petition filed by his son, the original respondent no. 3, Jamun Singh filed another petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code on 27.03.2015, praying for his impleadment as an opposite party. The petitioner filed a rejoinder and after hearing the parties, the learned trial court vide order dated 03.12.2016 allowed the petition dated 23.07.2015, which is under challenge before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court passed the order impugned without consideration of the objection made by the petitioner. Learned trial court did not consider that in earlier round of litigation, the son of the present intervenor was denied impleadment in the present case and it was upheld by this Court as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent no. 3 has died and has been substituted by his legal heirs/representatives as respondent nos. 3(i), 3(ii) and 3(iii). The basis of claim of original respondent no. 3 was the gift deed dated 23.01.1989 executed by one Firangi Bhagat. The original respondent no. 3 was convicted on 15.09.1997 for forging the signature of Firangi Bhagat on the deed of gift in a criminal case and earlier they were convicted for murder of Firangi Bhagat and taking into consideration this fact, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the petition filed by substituted respondent no. 3(i). Learned counsel further submitted that substituted respondent no. 3, Basudeo Singh and others illegally brought into existence the fraudulent deed of gift and thereafter in collusion with some other persons, they killed Firangi Bhagat and all these persons were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Moreover, the said deed of gift has been set aside in Title Suit No. 239 of 1989. So, there remains no basis for the respondents to get themselves impleaded in the LOA case filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that a petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code cannot be entertained in a proceeding for grant of probate or letter of administration. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has no caveatable interest in the present case and hence, the learned trial court completely erred on the point when it ordered for impleadment of the respondents in the LOA case b
In probate proceedings, a third party with a tangible interest may be permitted to join, as long as it does not prejudice existing parties, emphasizing the court's limited jurisdiction to the authent....
Probate courts are limited to assessing the genuineness of wills and cannot determine issues of property title or rights of intervenors.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
