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

2019 Supreme(Del) 480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
Prem Prakash Dabral - Appellant
Versus
State and Others - Respondent
Test Case No. 40 of 2012
Decided on : 15-05-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Sandeep Sharma, Adv., Hunnyveer Singh, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, particularly regarding the requirements for probate and the appointment of an executor or grant of letters of administration with the will annexed.

Headnote:

Probate - Indian Succession Act - Section 276 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly Section 276, which outlines the requirements for a petition for probate. The court also referred to Sections 222 and 232 of the Act, which deal with the appointment of an executor and the grant of letters of administration with the will annexed to a universal or residuary legatee. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and their application to the facts of the case.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought probate of the Will of the deceased, who had excluded certain family members from the will and bequeathed his property to the petitioner. The respondent raised objections to the probate, alleging collusion and disputing the authenticity of the will.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had proved the document to be the last Will of the deceased and addressed the objections raised by the respondent, ultimately allowing the petition and issuing Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in favor of the petitioner.

Issues: The issues involved the authenticity of the will, the appointment of an executor, and the grant of probate or letters of administration with the will annexed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Indian Succession Act, particularly Sections 276, 222, and 232, and the application of these provisions to the facts of the case. The court also considered previous decisions and legal principles related to probate and letters of administration.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and Letters of Administration with the Will annexed were issued in favor of the petitioner, enabling the administration of the deceased's estate.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. Petitioner by way of present petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeks probate of the Will of late Sh. Kali Prasad Dabral dated 29th October 2004.

Case of the Petitioner

2. Sh. Kali Prasad Dabral, (hereinafter ‘the deceased’) passed away on 4 th August 2011 and was survived by the four Class-I heirs, Prem Prakash Dabral (Petitioner No.1), Jaya Prakash Dabral (Respondent No. 2), Renu Nauriyal (Respondent No.3) and Rekha Mishra (Respondent No. 4). The deceased was the lawful sole owner of the property bearing no. C- 1/35, Janak Puri, New Delhi and upon his demise the said property has devolved onto the Petitioner by virtue of the last will and testament of the deceased dated 29th October 2004. As per this registered will, the deceased also bequeathed all his money in his bank accounts, pension accounts, NSCs, FDRs in favour of the Petitioner to the exclusion of the remaining Class-I heirs. The reasons for exclusion of the Respondents, as have been stated in the will, are that the elder son, Respondent No. 2, was disowned on 4th December 1993 from all the moveable and immoveable properties of the deceased for not performing his duties as a son and for acting beyond the reach of the deceased. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been excluded from the will because the deceased had spent a considerable amount in their marriage and he did not wish to bequeath any further property/money to them. Petitioner being the sole legatee is entitled to the abovesaid property to the exclusion of all other family members of the deceased and to the grant of probate of the Will dated 29th October 2004.

3. At the time of filing of the Petition, Respondent No. 5, wife of Respondent No. 2, was in possession of a portion of the abovesaid property. Later, she was directed to hand over the said portion of the property to the Petitioner vide Judgment dated 22ndJanuary 2014 in RSA 190/2011, titled as Prem Prakash Dabral v. Shikha Dabral & anr.

Proceedings in the Petition

4. The notice in the present petition was issued on 31st May 2012. Chief Revenue Controlling Authority was directed to submit a valuation report in respect of immovable property No. C- 1/35, Janak Puri. Citations were directed and published in daily edition of “Statesmen”.

5. On 10th September, 2012, Respondent No. 2 who was present in person stated that he as well as Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have no objection to the grant of probate and would file a No-Objection before the Court. Subsequently, the No-Objection affidavits were filed andon 2 nd April 2013, Petitioner was directed to file affidavit by way of evidence and the matter was directed to be listed before the Joint Registrar for tendering of evidence and marking of exhibits.

6. On 22nd May 2013, statements of PW-1, Sh. Prem Prakash Dabral, PW-2, Sh. Rakesh Sharma (attesting witness) and PW-3, Sh. S.K. Dabral (attesting witness no. 2) were recorded.The matter was then listed before Court on 3 rd September 2013, when Ms. Shikha Dabral, wife of Respondent No. 2 appeared and stated that the Will set up by the Petitioner is a collusive Will. She further stated that Respondent No. 2, her husband had abandoned her and his minor child and they were left in the premises bearing No. C-1/35, JanakPuri, New Delhi. The Court permitted her to file objections to the present petition. On 22ndJuly 2014, she was impleaded as a party to the present proceedings and arrayed as Respondent No. 5. She was given liberty to file an affidavit by way of evidence. Subsequently, on her request, several more opportunities were given to her to file affidavit by way of evidence, but to no avail.

7. In the meantime, Respondent No. 5 filed IA No. 11322/2016, for recalling the Petitioner for cross-examination. The said application was allowed by this Court on 12th January 2017 and Respondent No. 5 was permitted to cross-examine the Petitioner (PW-1). He was cross-examined on several dates and after closure of the Petitioner’s




















































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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top