The probate court can only determine the genuineness and due execution of the Will and cannot grant interlocutory relief in respect of the property which forms part of the estate of the deceased prior to the grant of probate.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - I.A. 7884/2021

1. This application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC, 1908, inter alia seeking direction of this Court to remove the lock from the property bearing No.C-46, First Floor, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'said property'), which is alleged to be bequeathed in favour of the petitioner by Late Sh. S. K. Zaman (who was the husband of the petitioner). The present application has been specifically filed with the following prayers:-

In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances, it is graciously prayed to this Hon'ble Court may kindly please to;-

a. Allow the present application and directed respondent no.2 to unlock the said property i.e. property bearing no.C-46, first floor, Niti Bagh, New Delhi in the interest of justice.

Pass any other such order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances in the favour of the petitioner and against the respondents herein.'

2. It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by Mr. R.K. Khanna, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that late Sh. S. K. Zaman was the Chief Architect and Town Planner in the Ministry of Housing, U.P. State Government, who was the owner of the said property and the petitioner and her husband had lived in the said property, since the day, the same was bought.

3. It is stated that the respondent No.2 is their only son and is currently living separately with his wife at Gurugram, Haryana for the last seven years, since the solemnization of his marriage.

4. It is stated that the respondent No.2 is harassing the petitioner by one way or another and specifically, soon after the demise of his father, he locked up the said property in the absence of the petitioner and is also forcing her to stay in a hotel.

5. So, the petitioner through this instant application is urging before this Court to direct the respondent No.2 to unlock the said property and allow the petitioner to live there peacefully.

6. It is stated that around 2011-2012, the respondent No.2 met with one Ms. Sahanaz Parveen, on Facebook and after developing certain level of friendship, brought her to the said property and introduced her as his wife to the petitioner and her husband. It is stated that the marriage of the respondent No.2 was contracted without the permission of his parents and his wife's behavior was also not cordial with the parents of the respondent No.2. It is further stated that since the behavior of the wife of the respondent no.2 was not cordial towards her parents-in-law, they did not permit them to stay for even a single day in the said property.

7. It is stated that the respondent No.2 always remained influenced and controlled by his wife as she had her ill eyes over the said property of the petitioner. It is also stated that the respondent No.2 used to contact his parents only when he used to be in dire need of money and not otherwise. It is further stated that the respondent No.2 also started to develop his association with some unruly persons who did not have good terms with his parents. That one amongst them was Subhash Arora from whom the parents of the respondent No.2 had bought lower ground floor, ground floor and second floor of the property bearing No.B-100, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi. It is stated that Subhash Arora runs a proprietorship business under the name and style of M/s Arora Developers and he has been alleged to have forged the signatures of the erstwhile owner of the aforementioned property and the erstwhile owner has also filed a criminal case against Subhash Arora, one Ankur Arora and B. P. Singh architect and civil engineer of MCD under section 465/471/506 IPC for committing the acts of forgery.

8. It is stated that Subhash Arora and his son Ankur Arora, who now runs a limited liability partnership firm under the name of 'Jai Raj Developers' contacted the respondent No.2?s father during his lifetime to resale the a