The probate court is limited to determining the validity of a Will and the fitness of the applicant for Letters of Administration. Proper evidence is required to establish relationships, and the revocability of Letters of Administration was emphasized.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. On 6th October, 1971, one Mohan Singh Sangar filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, registered as Probate Case No.12/1971 of this Court, seeking probate of the document dated 11th May, 1971 stated to be the last Will of Smt. Dropadi Devi widow of Sh. Uma Datt Sharma, resident of 110, Darya Ganj, Delhi who died at Shahpur, District Ambala on 21st July, 1971, in his capacity as the named executor in the said document, the other named executor viz. Uma Datt Sharma having died on 17th July, 1971.

2. The aforesaid probate case No.12/1971 was entertained. Objections were filed by i) Ram Sarup Sharma; ii) Dev Datt Sharma; iii) Suresh Chand Sharma; and, iv) Sita Devi pleading:

(i) That the document dated 11th May, 1971 set up by Mohan Singh Sangar as the Will of Dropadi Devi was forged and fabricated.

(ii) That the said objectors had already filed application in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge at Ambala for Succession Certificate on the basis of a document dated 19th July, 1971 stated to be the last Will of the said Smt. Dropadi Devi.

(iii) That Ajodhya Parshad and Ram Rang were sons of Har Bilas.

(iv) Ajodhya Parshad left a son Raghu Nandan and Ram Rang left a son Uma Datt Sharma.

(v) Dropadi Devi was the wife of Uma Datt Sharma.

(vi) That the objectors Ram Sarup and Dev Datt are the sons of Raghu Nandan.

(vii) Uma Datt Sharma had a son named Vidya Sagar who was unmarried and died in 1950.

(vii) That both Uma Datt Sharma and Dropadi Devi died in the house at Shahpur district Ambala which belonged to them and the objectors and was the family house.

(viii) That the Will dated 19th July, 1971 of Dropadi Devi was in favour of objectors.

(ix) Mohan Singh Sangar was one of the large number of tenants in house No.110, Darya Ganj, Delhi owned by Dropadi Devi.

(x) Dropadi Devi never wanted to disinherit her heirs i.e. the objectors.

(xi) The objectors are the heirs of Dropadi Devi.

3. The Administrator-General, Delhi also filed a reply to the Probate Case No.12/1971 pleading:

(a) That the objectors as per their pleadings are heirs of the husband of Dropadi Devi and not of Dropadi Devi.

(b) The application for Succession Certificate in the Court at Ambala was without jurisdiction and filed during the pendency of the Probate Case No.12/1971 and against law.

(c) The status of Mohan Singh Sangar as a tenant in the property of the deceased did not affect his title as Executor of the Will of the deceased.

The Administrator-General Delhi thus supported Mohan Singh Sangar.

4. The Administrator-General, Delhi filed IA No.93/1973 in Probate Case No.12/1971 for an order under Section 10 of the Administrators-General Act, 1963. The said application was allowed vide judgment dated 15th February, 1973 in Probate Case No.12/1971 in which it was recorded/held:

(i) That Smt. Dropadi Devi besides property known as Vidaya Sagar Bhawan situated at 110, Darya Gang, Delhi had also left a sum of Rs. 4,45,114.41/- paise in fixed deposit with the State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and another sum of approximately Rs. 40,000/- in a current account with Central Bank of India, Darya Ganj, Delhi.

(ii) That Mohan Singh Sangar died on 9th January, 1972.

(iii) Thereafter one Lalit Mohan Bangur who claimed to be one of the attesting witnesses of the alleged Will dated 11th May, 1971 and also a tenant in a part of the property at 110, Darya Ganj, Delhi moved IA No.249/1972 in Probate Case No.12/1971 praying that the Administrator-General, Delhi be granted Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of Dropadi Devi; notice of this application was sent to the Administrator-General, Delhi.

(iv) This application was opposed by the counsel for the objectors averring that the property of the deceased Dropadi Devi was not in danger of loss, deterioration or waste.

(v) No merit was found in the said plea of the objectors as rent from the tenants in the property was to be collected and taxes with respect to the property paid;