The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly Section 8, Section 14, Section 15, and Section 21, play a crucial role in determining the devolution of property in probate cases.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that Kamal Deep Bhutani son of Shri Om Parkash, respondent in the present appeal, had filed a petition for issuance of Letter of Administration in respect of Will dated 13.2.1999 executed by the deceased Shri Bhagwan Dass son of Shri Kushal Chand, father-in-law of Shri Kamal Deep Bhutani. In the petition, the respondent impleaded General Public and relatives without disclosing particulars of any relatives. Learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, without taking steps to serve any person ordered the publication of notice in newspaper Dainik Chetna.

2. As no one appeared in pursuance thereto to contest the petition, the respondents were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 9.2.2001. On the basis of the ex parte evidence led, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the Will executed by Shri Bhagwan Dass was duly proved. The respondent also proved the Will executed by his wife Vandana in his favour. The petition was accepted and a Letter of Probate was given in favour of the respondent in respect of the properties mentioned in the Will Exhibit P-1. It was also ordered that the letter of probate on furnishing of requisite stamp duty be issued.

3. The appellant Shri Ramesh Kumar claiming himself to be son of Shri Hans Raj, real brother of Bhagwan Dass, filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside order dated 9.2.2001 and exparte decision dated 27.2.2001 vide which the Letter of Administration was ordered in favour of the respondent. In the application moved under Order 9 Rule 13, the case set up by the appellant was that no registered letter or summons were issued and directly publication was ordered in the newspaper which had no circulation in Rajasthan where the appellant was residing.

4. It was also alleged that it was on 16.2002 that the appellant came to know about the said* order and accordingly moved an application on 1.2.2002 i.e. within 30 days of knowledge. The said application was contested by the respondent herein by claiming it to be false and frivolous. It was also alleged that the application was time barred and the right of the appellant to contest the claim was also disputed.

5. The admitted facts in the present case were that Shri Bhagwan Dass, father-in-law, alongwith his daughter Vandana wife of the respondent and daughter of respondent i.e. Ujwala died in an accident on 26.12.1999. Though Shri Bhagwan Dass and Ujwala died on 26.12.1999 itself, Jyotsana mother-in-law of respondent died on 3.1.2000. The relationship of Bhagwan Dass with Hans Raj, father of the appellant, was not disputed The learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, dismissed the application being time barred by holding that in case the appellant had come to know about the order on 16.1.2002, he should have moved an application for condonation of delay which was not done. The application was thus held to be time barred. Learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the application being time barred also considered the claim of the appellant on merits. The learned Court below in its order dated 4.5.2002 held as under:

Now for the sake of arguments, question arises whether Will was executed or not or Will was a forged document. For the sake of argument, if one forgets that no Will was executed by Smt. Jyostana. In that eventuality as Bhagwan Dass and Jyostana were having only one daughter Vandana Wife of the petitioner who used to treat the petitioner as their son and petitioner along with his wife was serving them as his parents as it is a fact of common knowledge that inheritance does not remain in abeyance and when in the accident Bhagwan Dass, Vandana, Ujwala and Jyostana died the property of Bhagwan Dass immediately was inherited by Jyostana wife of Bhagwan Dass because she died on 3.1.2000 while Bhagwan Dass died on 26.12.1999. As per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,