Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Maina Devi - Appellant
Versus
Rati Ram - Respondent
FAO 225/2009
Decided On : 30.11.2015
For the Appellant :Mr Rahul Gupta & Mr Shekhar Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ms Neha Kapoor, Advocate
The judgment underscored the requirement of just cause for revocation of probate or letters of administration, the burden of proof on the petitioner to establish fraudulent acts, and the importance of evidence and the limitation period for challenging such grants.
Headnote:
Indian Succession Act - Cancellation of Letters of Administration - Section 263, 264, 282 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, specifically Sections 263, 264, and 282, and their application in the context of seeking cancellation of Letters of Administration. The court highlighted the requirement of just cause for revocation and the burden of proof on the petitioner to establish fraudulent interpolation in the Will. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence and the limitation period for challenging the grant of probate or letters of administration.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a petition to challenge the grant of Letters of Administration in favor of the respondent, citing failure to disclose her interest in the subject property and alleged fraud by the respondent. The trial court rejected the petition, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to establish fraudulent interpolation in the Will and did not provide sufficient evidence to challenge the grant of Letters of Administration. The court also noted the appellant's delay in challenging the probate despite having prior knowledge.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged fraudulent interpolation in the Will, failure to disclose the appellant's interest in the property, and the delay in challenging the grant of Letters of Administration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to establish just cause for revocation and the burden of proof to demonstrate fraudulent acts. It also highlighted the importance of evidence and the limitation period for challenging probate or letters of administration.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
FAO 225/2009 & CM No. 9912/2009
1. This is an appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 18.02.2009, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi. By virtue of the said judgment, the learned ADJ, rejected the appellant’s petition dated 05.04.2004, preferred under Section 263, 264 and 282 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short the 1925 Act).
1.2 The appellant via the said petition had sought cancellation of Letters of Administration granted in favour of the respondent vide judgment dated 21.04.1994.
2. The appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, passed by the learned ADJ, instituted the present appeal.
3. In order to adjudicate upon the present appeal, the following broad facts are required to be noticed:
3.1 The respondent had filed a petition under Section 276 and 278 of the 1925 Act for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of a registered Will dated 23.11.1981, executed by, one, Late Sh. Jumma Mal. The executor of the Will i.e. Sh. Jumma Mal passed away on 30.12.1984. Accordingly, upon a petition being moved; which was registered as Probate Case No. 156/1992, the concerned court, allowed the petition and granted Letters of Administration in favour of the respondent qua Will dated 23.11.1981.
3.2 Fourteen years later i.e. on 05.04.2004, as indicated above, the appellant filed a petition under Section 263, 264 and 282 of the 1925 Act, to challenge the grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the respondent.
3.3 This petition was predicated on the following grounds:
(i) That in the probate petition the respondent had failed to disclose the appellant’s interest in the immovable property located at Khasra No. 256/1, in Village Ghonda, Gujran Khadar Ilaka, Shahdara, Delhi; admeasuring 427 sq. yds. The failure to disclose the appellant’s half share in the aforementioned property at the time of issuance of citation, and/or notice in the probate petition, had prevented the appellant from filing her objections at the relevant point in time in the testamentary action.
(ii) Since, the respondent along with his wife had sold half portion of the aforementioned property, admeasuring 213.5 sq. yds., by executing a General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and a Will – all of even date i.e. 01.10.1987 against a registered receipt of Rs. 11,000/-, the effective relief obtained by the respondent vis-a-vis the entire property, was secured, by playing a fraud on the court.
4. The learned ADJ, after evaluating the evidence placed on record, rejected the petition whereby, cancellation of Letters of Administration dated 21.04.1994, issued in favour of the respondent, was sought. The principal findings of the learned ADJ were as follows:
(i) It was not disputed by the appellant that Late Sh. Jumma Mal was the owner of the subject property.
(ii) Even as per the testimony of the husband of the appellant, namely, Sh. Hira Lal, the Will dated 23.11.1981 was executed by Late Sh. Jumma Mal in favour of the respondent’s wife, one, Smt. Jai Rani, and that, the respondent had obtained the Letters of Administration in his favour by interpolating his name in the said Will.
(iii) In a suit for mandatory injunction being: CS (OS) No. 509/1991, filed by the respondent, he had disclosed the factum of having obtained Letters of Administration vide judgment dated 21.04.1994, as far back as in 1996.
(iv) That GPA dated 01.10.1987, executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant, was cancelled/ withdrawn, and therefore, a suit had been instituted in this court.
(v) That the appellant’s husband i.e. Sh. Hira Lal (PW4) in his cross-examination had admitted that he was not in possession of the half-portion of the aforementioned property in respect of which ownership was claimed.
(vi) The appellant has accepted, in a sense, the genuineness of the Will dated 23.11.19
