Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Som Prakash - Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. - Respondents
FAO 223 of 2018, CM Appl. 20239 of 2018 & CM Appl. 12184 of 2021& FAO 239 of 2018, CM. Appl. Nos. 20500, 43973 of 2018 & 26083 of 2020
Decided On : 10-10-2022
Indian Succession Act - Revocation of Letters of Administration - Section 299 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 262; Indian Evidence Act, Section 68; Limitation Act, Article 137 - The court discussed the revocation of Letters of Administration granted under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the relevant sections of the Indian Evidence Act and the Limitation Act. The key legal provisions of Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act and Article 137 of the Limitation Act were interpreted and applied in reaching the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the revocation of Letters of Administration granted in favor of Som Prakash under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The dispute arose from conflicting claims regarding the validity of a Will dated 01.01.1991 and a subsequent Will dated 30.01.1996, leading to legal proceedings and the sale of the property in question.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revocation application was filed beyond the period of limitation as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and therefore, the revocation of the Letters of Administration was not upheld. Consequently, the appeal filed on behalf of Som Prakash was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.
Issues: The issues involved the revocation of Letters of Administration, the validity of the Wills dated 01.01.1991 and 30.01.1996, and the application of the limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revocation application was time-barred as it was not filed within the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of the relevant legal provisions.
Final Decision: The appeal filed on behalf of Som Prakash was allowed, and the impugned judgment revoking the Letters of Administration was set aside. The pending miscellaneous applications and appeal were disposed of as infructuous.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The appellants have preferred the present appeals under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against order/judgment dated 20.12.2017 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge (HQs), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Misc. DJ No. 61012/2016 titled as Jai Ram v. Som Prakash & Anr, revoking the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the appellant/Som Prakash vide judgment dated 01.09.1999 in respect of a Will dated 01.01.1991.
2. The facts, as emerge from the record, are as following. Appellant (Som Prakash) is nephew of one late Smt. Satwanti Devi, who statedly passed away issueless on 30.12.1996. Satwanti Devi was married to Late Govind Lal Verma, who pre-deceased her.
3. Som Prakash propounded a Will dated 01.01.1991, purportedly executed by Satwanti Devi, bequeathing property bearing No. 11223, single storeyed situated in Bagh Rao Ji, Khasra No. 157/48-51/2, Block A/68 Double Phatak Road, Delhi in his favour (hereinafter, referred to as 'said property'). Som Prakash was the sole beneficiary under this Will. This Will was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Asif Ali Road. Seeking probate of Will dated 01.01.1991, Som Prakash filed a probate petition under Section 262 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which was registered as Probate Case No. 382/1997 and titled as Som Prakash v. State (hereinafter, referred to as 'Som Prakash's Probate Petition'). In this petition, only the State was impleaded on the plea that Satwanti Devi had died issueless and left behind no legal heirs.
4. Som Prakash's Probate Petition was allowed and Letters of Administration were granted in his favour vide judgment dated 01.09.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Delhi. Before the grant of probate, the probate Court had directed issuance of public notice/citation as per rules. A public notice was issued in National Herald to the general public at large inviting objections, however, no objection was received from any quarter.
5. Subsequently, Som Prakash sold the said property to one Raj Kumar Chaudhary (appellant in FAO 239/2018) vide sale deed dated 25.06.2008. At the time, respondent No.2/Jai Ram was a tenant in physical possession of the said property and the same was sold as it is. After purchasing the said property, Raj Kumar Chaudhary filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction and recovery of damages against Jai Ram, which was registered as Suit No 261/2009 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Raj Kumar's Suit').
6. Records reveal that Raj Kumar's Suit was decreed ex-parte against Jai Ram on 03.02.2012. Raj Kumar filed an execution petition being Ex. No. 16/2014 to recover possession from Jai Ram however, it seems the ex-parte judgment lacked proper description of the suit property and Raj Kumar had to file an application in the decreed suit to seek clarification in this regard. In the said application seeking clarification, notice was issued to Jai Ram, who claimed ignorance of the suit itself, and filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC on 27.02.2013 for setting aside of ex-parte decree dated 03.02.2012. Reportedly, the application was allowed vide order dated 31.10.2019. A challenge to the said order is stated to be pending adjudication before the concerned Court.
7. Curiously, in the year 1997, Jai Ram also set up a Will dated 30.01.1996, allegedly executed by Satwanti Devi in his favour, whereby the said property was bequeathed to him. Jai Ram claimed that since he took care of Satwanti Devi, she rewarded him by bequeathing the property to him after revoking her earlier Will dated 01.01.1991 vide a registered revocation deed dated 26.09.1995.
8. Jai Ram had filed his own probate petition which was registered as Probate Case No. 136/1997 (later on re-numbered as Probate Case No. 184/2005) seeking Letter of Administration in respect of the Will dated 30.01.1996. In these proceedings, Som Prakash had filed an application for his impleadment on 28.01.1998/03.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act in the context of revocation of Letters of Admi....
Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to probate applications, allowing three years for filing while emphasizing that the right to apply is continuous, thus raising suspicion for delays bey....
Probate grants are judgments in rem, triggering a strict three-year limitation period for revocation, with knowledge of the grant not resetting this period. There was no evidence of fraud or procedur....
The propounder of a will must prove its valid execution and the testator's mental capacity, with the burden of removing any suspicion surrounding the will's authenticity.
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
