Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNIL AMBWANI
BEGUM SHANTI TUFALL AHMAD KHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Testamentary Case 28 Of 1997
Decided On : 12/06/2005
Probate - Testamentary Case - Indian Succession Act 1925, Limitation Act 1963 - The court discussed the validity of the will and the delay in filing the petition. The court found that the deceased had other heirs and without their consent, the bequest of more than one third of her properties was invalid. The court also held that the application for probate was grossly barred by laches and dismissed the testamentary case with costs to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a testamentary case for grant of probate with a copy of the Will executed by the deceased, claiming to be the sole beneficiary. Objections were filed by others claiming rights to the properties mentioned in the Will. The case was converted into a suit and heard on various dates.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased had other heirs and without their consent, the bequest of more than one third of her properties was invalid. The court also held that the application for probate was grossly barred by laches and dismissed the testamentary case with costs to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.
Issues: Validity of the will, delay in filing the petition, and applicability of the Indian Succession Act 1925 and Limitation Act 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased had other heirs and without their consent, the bequest of more than one third of her properties was invalid. The court also found that the application for probate was grossly barred by laches and dismissed the testamentary case with costs to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.
Final Decision: The testamentary case was dismissed with costs to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.
( 2 ) IN the Will (Paper No. A-3/16) the deceased claimed to be 60 years old and owner of properties in many cities of India, which she got from her husband, more particularly in Delhi. U. P. , Madhya Pradesh and haryana including Plot No. 43 and 44 on retuned Road on which House No. 18-B maharani Bagh New Delhi is built; Shanti kunj and Dileram Estate in Mussorrie in u. P. , Tasvir Mahal Cinema in Aligarh. Digar properties at Hazratganj, Lucknow and Civil lines at Allahabad and also Gwalior in madhya Pradesh, Garhi Bahrail and Nawab garhi in District Karnal, Haryana. She bequeathed the entire properties to a son in the family, Jalalludin son of Bahruddin resident of Muzaffarnagar, U. P. related to her as the family grandson (Khandani Chirag ). In this Will she scribed that her husband was a lecturer in Aligarh University and had desired that the property should remain in the family, left by her husband on death to jalaluddin who he expected to follow the traditions of the family. She gave him her full rights to get his name transferred in all the properties. The Will was scribed by Sri sadhu Ram, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi on 23. 5. 1974 and was witnessed by Sri Yusuf ali Khan son of Kamalludin Khan resident of 60 Jafarabad, Delhi and Sri Kitabuddin, son of Sri Mohd. Nasir Husain, resident of kairana, Muzaffarnagar.
( 3 ) NOTICES were issued on 19. 9. 1997 to sri Ruikom Deen son of Sri Badruddin, alleged to be the only surviving next kith and kin, Administrator General, Board of Revenue, u. P. and to be published in the news paper. The advertisement was carried out in amar Ujala dated 12. 11. 1997 published from Meerut and hindustan Times published from New Delhi on 13. 11. 1997. Sri rukom Deen son of Sri Badruddin appearing through Sri R. K. Upadhaya, Advocate filed his affidavit dated 28. 11. 1997 stating in para 3 that so far as the Will as executed by Shanti Tuffail Ahmad on 23. 7. 74 is concerned the deponent has nothing to do with the Will as well he has no objections. Affidavit of valuation of assets was filed describing the properties in the State of Delhi, Uttar pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana with a total value of Rs. 9 lacs only. In pursuance of directions by this Court the better particulars with full valuation were given by a fresh affidavit of valuation valuing the properties at Rs. 20, 90, 400. 00 only.
( 4 ) OBJECTIONS were filed by Sri Ravi Sikari claiming to be owners of B-18 Maharani bagh, New Delhi. In these objections dated 15. 7. 1998 he denied the title of deceased and claimed that he had acquried the perpetual Sub Lease dated 31. 5. 1965 from maharani Bagh Cooperative Housing Building society Ltd. which is a registered document and has been paying house tax vide assessment order annexed to his objections. Objections were also filed by Sri Patwant singh and Smt. Rasil Basu on 17. 5. 1989 stating that a Muslim could not have given more than one third of her properties by Will under the Muslim Law. The properties bearing no. 11 Amrita Shergil Marg New Delhi was allotted to Sri Tufail Ahamad Khan vide lease Deed dated 23. 12. 1939. He sold the properties to Sri Kamla Devi on 13. 2. 1948, who thereafter sold to Smt.
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
