SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(Del) 89

High Court Of Delhi
RADHEY LAL SETH - Appellant
Versus
LADLI PARSHAD SETH - Respondent
Civil 340D of 1965
Decided On : 08/24/1966

Advocates Appeared:
H.HARDY, H.L.SABARVAL, M.R.CHHABRA, Y.K.SABHARVAL

Probate is not necessary to establish a right as executor or legatee under a will executed by a Hindu in Punjab.

Headnote:

WILL - PROBATE - NOT REQUIRED - SUCCESSION ACT, 1865, SECTIONS 57, 213 - PROBATE NOT NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH RIGHT AS EXECUTOR OR LEGATEE UNDER WILL - WILL EXECUTED BY HINDU IN PUNJAB - SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE CAN BE GRANTED ON GROUND OF WILL WITHOUT PROBATE.

Fact of the Case:

Mohini Devi, widow of Mathra Pershad, applied to be brought on the record as his legal representative in a suit instituted by Radhey Lal, son of Mathra Pershad, after Mathra Pershad's death. Radhey Lal contested the application, alleging that the will was forged and that Mathra Pershad was not of sound mind when he executed it. The trial court found in favor of Mohini Devi and ordered that she be substituted as Mathra Pershad's legal representative.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the execution of the will was proved by the three attesting witnesses, who testified that Mathra Pershad had executed the will in their presence and that he was of sound mind at the time. The court also found that the signatures of the attesting witnesses were genuine and that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim that the will was forged.

Issues: 1. Whether Mohini Devi, widow of the deceased, is the only heir of the deceased?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that probate was not necessary to establish a right as executor or legatee under a will executed by a Hindu in Punjab. The court relied on section 57 of the Succession Act, 1865, which provides that the provisions of Part VI of the Act, which includes section 213, apply to wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains. Section 213(1) requires probate of a will to establish a right as executor or legatee, but section 213(2) provides that this section does not apply to wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains where such wills are of the classes specified in clauses (a) and (b) of section 57. The court found that the will in question fell within the ambit of clause (a) of section 57, as it was made by a Hindu and the property and parties were situate in the territories of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by Radhey Lal, upholding the trial court's order that Mohini Devi be substituted as Mathra Pershad's legal representative.

J. S. Bedi, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has cropped up from the following facts : Seth Mathra Pershad, who was defendent in this case, died during the pendency of the suit instituted by Radhey Lal petitioner. The plaintiff Radhey Lal, it may be mentioned, is the son of Mathra Pershad defendant. On the death of Mathra Pershad; Radhey Lal plaintiff applied for bringing his legal representatives on the record. Mohini Devi, widow of the deceased, in reply to the application stated that she was the only heir of Mathra Pershad as the latter had executed a will on 3rd September, 1959, in her favour by virtue of which she was the only heir of the deceased. Radhey Lal resisted that application and also the allegations made therein averring that Mathra Parshad never made any will on 3rd September, 1959. The alleged will was a forgery as Mathra Parshad, long before the execution of the will, was not of a sound and disposing mind and had a serious attack of paralysis. He was, therefore, physically incapable of signing any document. It was also stated that Ladli Parshad defendant No. 2, who was the son of Mathra Parshad, was the mukhtar-i-am of his father and was controlling the property. The will in question, according to the plaintiff, was not a free will and was the result of undue influence. It was also alleged that Mathra Parshad had signed many blank papers and Ladli Parshad forged the alleged will on one of those papers and Smt. Mohini Devi, therefore, was not the only legal representative of the deceased. The trial Judge framed the following issues :- I Whether Mohini Devi, widow of the deceased, is the only heir of the deceased ? 0. P. Resp. 2. Relief. The learned Subordinate Judge, Shri R. K. Synghal, decided issue No. I in favour of the respondent and ordered that her name be substituted in place of Mathra Parshad defendant as his legal repres tative, vide his order dated 5th February, 1965. Radhey Lal felt aggrieved and filed the present revision petition against that order in this Court.

( 2 ) I have heard arguments of the parties at considerable length. The onus of issue No. 1 was on Mohini Devi. In order to discharge the same, she examined Faquir Chand R. W. I, Ram Gopal R. W. 2 and Laxmi Narain R. W. 3, the attesting witnesses of the will. They, in unequivocal terms, stated that Mathra Parshad had executed the will in their presence and they all attested the same in the presence of Mathra Parshad. They also stated that Mathra Parshad, at that time, was of sound and disposing mind. The same is borne out from the statement of K. L. Sehgal R. W. 4. The plaintiff examined H. N. Tandon A. W. I to rebut the evidence led by the respondent who stated that he could not say definitely if the signatures on R. I, the will, of Mathra Pershad. He also stated that Mathra Parshad was not in the habit of signing blank papers. The evidence of this witness is not helpful to the plaintiff, but, in my opinion, goes against his pleas. The evidence of Goverdhan Lal A. W. 2 was also discussed by the Court below, and rightly rejected. According to this witness, Mathra Parshad was not physically fit, in the year 1959, to have executed this will. He, however, could not say whether Mathra Parshad could write or speak then. The plaintiff also produced T. R. Nanda, handwriting expert, who stated that the signatures on the will were not of Mathra Parshad. But the evidence of hand-writing expert as has been consistently held, is not helpful, firstly, for the reason that this science is not exact and, secondly, invariably a hand-writing expert supports the party who produces him in Court. Besides the witnesses mentioned above, the plaintiff also appeared in the witness-box as his own witness. I agree with the finding of the Court below that execution of the will was proved by the three attesing witnesses of the will mentioned above, against whom. nothing has been, or could be said, more so when the evidence produced by the plaintiff was also extremely










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top