1986 Supreme(P&H) 88

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
State Of Punjab
Versus
Vishwajit Singh
Probate Case No. 4 of 1979,
Decided On : MARCH 6, 1986

An application for probate or Letters of Administration on the basis of a will is not subject to the limitation period prescribed in Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, as the right to apply accrues from day to day so long as the will remains un-probated.

Headnote:

SUCCESSION ACT - WILL - PROBATE - LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - APPLICATION BY STATE - AUTHORISED PERSON - REFUSAL OF EXECUTOR TO ACT - UNIVERSAL LEGATEE - STANDARD OF EVIDENCE - SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - TEST OF SATISFACTION OF JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE - EXECUTION OF WILL - ATTESTING WITNESSES - PRESENCE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - AUTHENTICATION - ENDORSEMENT - STATEMENT OF WITNESS - CONTRADICTION - CORROBORATION - IMPEACHMENT OF CREDIT - REJECTION OF STATEMENT - RELIABILITY OF WITNESS - PRESENCE OF PERSONAL ASSISTANT OF EXECUTOR - STATEMENT OF HANDWRITING EXPERT - OPINION - COMPARISON OF SIGNATURES - GENUINENESS OF WILL - MENTAL CONDITION OF TESTATRIX - DISINHERITANCE OF HEIRS - LIMITATION - ART. 137 OF LIMITATION ACT - NOT APPLICABLE TO APPLICATION FOR PROBATE OR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION BASED ON WILL - RIGHT TO APPLY ACCRUES FROM DAY TO DAY.

Fact of the Case:

Petition for grant of Letters of Administration on the basis of a will executed by Smt. Parbati Kaur in favour of Randhir Jagatjit Hospital, Kapurthala. The petition was contested by Vishwajit Singh, Sehdev Singh and Atam Dev Singh on various grounds, including unauthorized person filing the petition, refusal of the executor to act, invalidity of the will, limitation, and possession of the property by the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

1. The petition was filed by an authorized person, namely, the Government Pleader, Kapurthala, as per the relevant rule and notification. 2. Jagan Nath Paul, the executor named in the will, refused to act due to old age and ill health, and the petitioner, as a universal legatee, was entitled to make the present petition. 3. The execution of the will was proved by the testimony of attesting witnesses, Yog Raj and Dr. Mohd. Iftikhar Ali, and the authentication by Shri Durga Shanker Panna Lal Vohra, Additional District Magistrate, Indore. 4. The statement of Dr. Ali, though initially supporting the petitioner, was later retracted and found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and contradictions. 5. The statements of Yog Raj and Shri Vohra were found to be credible and consistent with the circumstances surrounding the execution and authentication of the will. 6. The presence of Yog Raj at the time of authentication, though not admitted by Shri Vohra, was not ruled out considering his close association with the family of Col. Dina Nath, the real brother of the testatrix. 7. The endorsement on the will, made by Shri Vohra, was found to be genuine and corroborated the execution and authentication process. 8. The opinion of the handwriting expert, comparing the signatures on the will with other documents, was discarded due to lack of proper comparison and potential bias. 9. The signatures of the testatrix on the will were found to be genuine and consistent with her previous signatures on other documents. 10. The mental condition of the testatrix at the time of executing the will was found to be sound and disposing, as per the testimony of Dr. Ali and other witnesses. 11. The disinheritance of the nearest heirs was not considered suspicious, given the circumstances and the testatrix's relationship with them. 12. The application for Letters of Administration was held to be within limitation as Art. 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply to such applications, and the right to apply accrues from day to day so long as the will remains un-probated.

Issues: 1. Whether the application has been filed by an unauthorised person? 2. Whether Sh. Jagan Nath Paul has refused to act as an executor, if so, its effect? 3. Whether the deceased has executed any valid will in favour of the applicant? 4. Whether the application is properly verified, if not so, to what effect? 5. Whether the application is bad for mis-joinder of parties? 6. Whether the application is within limitation? 7. Whether the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of the property in dispute, if so, its effect?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. An application for probate or Letters of Administration on the basis of a will can be filed by an authorized person, such as the Government Pleader, as per the relevant rules and notifications. 2. When the executor named in the will refuses to act, a universal legatee is entitled to make the petition for Letters of Administration. 3. The execution of a will can be proved by the testimony of attesting witnesses and the authentication by an authorized official, as per the requirements of the Succession Act. 4. A statement of a witness can be used for contradiction, corroboration, or impeachment of credit, but if it is rejected by the Court, it cannot be used to judge the veracity of other witnesses. 5. The presence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a will requires a higher standard of evidence and satisfaction of judicial conscience to accept the will as valid. 6. The opinion of a handwriting expert can be discarded if it is based on improper comparison or potential bias. 7. The mental condition of the testatrix at the time of executing the will is a crucial factor in determining the validity of the will. 8. Disinheritance of heirs is not suspicious if there are valid reasons and circumstances to support it. 9. An application for probate or Letters of Administration on the basis of a will is not subject to the limitation period prescribed in Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, as the right to apply accrues from day to day so long as the will remains un-probated.

Final Decision: The petition for grant of Letters of Administration was accepted, and Letters of Administration were granted to the petitioner, the State, with no costs awarded.