The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on securing the rights of absent legal heirs in the sale of property, while allowing the sale to proceed for the consenting legal heirs.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)--This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the ADJ, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (`District Judge') in Misc. DJ No. 61 of 2020, whereby the Probate Court dismissed the application filed by the Petitioners herein under Section 307 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (`Act of 1925') seeking permission to sell the Flat No. 037, Nirman Apartment, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-91 (`subject property').

1.1. The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 7 has entered appearance and states that the said Respondent are agreeable and consenting to the reliefs sought by the Petitioners in this petition and in the application filed under Section 307 of the Act of 1925.

1.2. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 i.e., GNCTD, states that he has no concern with the reliefs sought in this petition and the application filed under Section 307 of Act of 1925 and he therefore has no submissions to make in this regard.

Facts

2. It is stated that the subject property forms the part of the estate of late Kumari Reba Dasgupta who died intestate. It is stated that the parties to the petition i.e., Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 together are her only Class-II legal heirs entitled to succeed her estate.

2.1. It is stated that the Petitioners herein on 11.12.2017 filed a petition seeking Letters of Administration and the said petition was allowed by the District Judge vide judgment dated 17.09.2018 and Letters of Administration were granted to the Petitioners herein on 12.07.2019.

2.2. It is stated after obtaining the Letters of Administration; the Petitioners herein have been maintaining the subject property and paying all its municipal dues, estate dues etc. It is stated that the Petitioners now intend to sell the subject property and divide the proceeds equally amongst the Class-II legal heirs as the Petitioners herein are not in a position to continue to maintain the subject property.

2.3. It is stated that in the aforesaid circumstances an application under Section 307 of Act of 1925 was filed before District Judge seeking permission to sell the subject property.

2.4. It is stated that Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 did not appear before the District Judge in probate case No. 5/2018 filed under Section 278 of Act of 1925 and they were served by publication on 03.04.2018 in the said proceedings. The District Judge after being satisfied with the service, was pleased to grant the Letters of Administration.

2.5. It is stated that thereafter, when the application under Section 307 of the Act of 1925 was filed on 17.03.2020, the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were similarly served through publication on 18.10.2020. It is stated that however, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

2.6. It is stated that on account of non-appearance of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 that the District Judge has declined permission to the Petitioners herein to sell the subject property. It is stated that the second reason given by the District Judge was misdescription of Respondent No. 4, which the learned counsel for the Petitioner states was inadvertent and has been duly corrected.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the consenting four (4) legal heirs should be permitted to conduct the sale and realise the sale proceeds. He states that the consenting four (4) legal heirs are senior citizens and would be benefitted with the funds.

3.1. He states that the application has been moved bona fide and permission should be granted in terms of Section 307 of Act of 1925.

4. This Court is of the opinion that the in the facts and circumstances of this case there is no impediment in granting permission to the Petitioners herein to sell the subject property and divide the proceeds equally between the Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 to 7.

5. The crux of the issue is that there are eight (8) legal heirs of late Kum