SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(All) 1917

[2006(5) ADJ 663]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
Dr. SAJJAN SINGH AND OTHERS ....Plaintiffs
Versus
MAHARANI PRAVEEN KUMARI AND ANOTHER ....Defendants
(Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1999, decided on 21st July, 2006)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Rakesh Bahadur, Navin Sinha for the Plaintiff; Ajit Kumar, Manu Saxena, Mohit Kumar for the Defendants.

Headnote:(A) Will—Genuineness of—Testamentary case—For grant of Probate with will—Question whether the Will as alleged to have been executed, was duly executed and is genuine, in a sound disposing state of mind, signed with understanding, its effect of contents, etc., or was forged, or fictitious with fraudulent acts, etc., suit undervalued, and liable to be dismissed, and no relief can be given—Held, there was absolutely no pleadings, or evidence with regard to meeting, or contract, or instructions, which testator-Maharaja gave to Shri B.M. Gupta, Advocate, who was, in fact, counsel of family of Dr. Sajjan Singh (Plaintiffs)—No evidence that Maharaja had ever met that Advocate before, or even after execution of said Will—Propounder has neither summoned scribes, nor person, who was deputed to have instructed scribe to Draft Will—Moreover, corrections in Will was signed by scribe i.e., Advocate B.M. Gupta, and not by Testator-Maharaja—Therefore, a heavy burden was placed on propounders and that they were required to call aid of Expert to prove signature on Will—Propounder did not find it prudent to make a request to seek opinion of a Hand-writing Expert—Hence, propounder have failed to prove execution, registration, and attestation of that Will—Nor he could prove that Maharaja was in sound and disposing state of mind and understood nature and effect of disposition, and had put his signatures to document by his own free Will—Propounder failed to remove suspicious circumstances, surrounding Will—Therefore, alleged Will was not duly and validly executed by Testator, late Maharaja, and it was a fraudulent and fictitious document—Therefore, plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief claimed in Testamentary suit—Hence, suit liable to be dismissed. [Indian Succession Act, 1925—Sections 232 and 268—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order VII, Rule 11—Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952—Chapter XXX, Rule 5—Indian Registration Act, 1908—Sections 42 to 46—Court Fees Act, 1870—Schedule III]. [Paras 85, 93, 109 to 116]

       (B) Evidence Act, 1972—Sections 67 and 68—Will—Onus of proof—That the testator was in sound and disposing state of mind on date of execution of Will—Shifted on the propunders of the Will. [Para 60]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—The plaintiffs, named as executors in the alleged will of Maharaja Martand Singh son of Late H.H. Maharaja Gulab Singh Juedeo of Rewa, filed a Testamentary Case No. 4 of 1999 for grant of probate with will dated 5.1.1993 attached under Section 232 and 268 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short the Succession Act). The application is contested by the caveators/objectors Maharani Smt. Praveen Kumari, the widow and Shri Pushpraj Singh, the son of late Maharaja on which it was registered as Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1999. The Maharaja died on 20.11.1995 at his residence at Fort Rewa in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which is stated to be his fixed place of abode. The Maharaja had left behind properties at Rewa in Madhya Pradesh; Bombay in State of Maharashtra and at Allahabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

2. Heard Shri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rakesh Bahadur for the plaintiffs; and Shri Ajeet Kumar, Advocate assisted by Shri Manu Saxena and Shri Mohit Kumar for the defendants.

3. It is stated by the plaintiffs, the executors named in the will, that the Maharaja at the time of his death possessed, and has also left shares in different companies having registered offices outside the State of U.P. and having face value in which he held 1/3rd share. He left behind his last will dated 5.1.1993, and testament made voluntarily in a fit and disposable state of mind. The will is registered and is in safe keeping of the District Registrar, Rewa and may be summoned by the Court. By the will the Maharaja, gave his entire properties to his legal heirs as also his employees as mentioned in the will dated 5.1.1993. The petitioners have been named and are appointed as Executors jointly and severely along with Shri H.S. Srivastava and Shri Ajai Singh. The will was executed in the presence of three marginal attesting witnesses, namely Gyanendra Singh son of Shri Surendra Singh, resident of Amahya, Rewa (M.P.), Dr. R.P. Srivastava son of Late Sri Uma Charan Srivastava, resident of Venkat Battalion, Rewa (M.P.) and Shri Jagdish Prasad Misra, resident of Venkat Battalion, Rewa (M.P.), who had signed in the presence of each other and in the presence of the deceased, who himself put his signature on each page in the presence of the witnesses.

4. It is stated that the petitioners have truly set forth in Annexure-1 to the affidavit, the valuation (property and assets) of all the properties and credits, which the Maharaja possessed of or was entitled to at the time of his death, which have or are likely to come to his hands, so as the petitioners have been able to ascertain, or are aware that there is no property and credits other than that specified in Annexure 1, which in para 10 have been valued at Rs. 1 crore. It is stated that the Maharaja had left behind him as survivors (1) Maharani Parveen Kumari R/o Fort, Uprahathi, Rewa (M.P.) (widow), and (2) Sri Pushp Raj Singh, R/o Fort, Uprahathi, Rewa (M.P.) (son), as his only next of kin. It is further stated in the application that no petition, application has been made to any District Court or any other High Court for grant of probate, letters of administration or succession certificate. The petitioners have undertaken to administer the property and credits of the Maharaja and to make full and true inventory thereafter and exhibit the same in the Court within six months of the grant of probate.

5. Maharani Smt. Praveen Kumari and Shri Pushpraj Singh, the widow and son of the late Maharaja filed their caveat on 24.3.1999 through Shri R.N. Upadhyaya, Advocate. They filed their written objections, verified by the Maharani and supported by her affidavit as also the affidavit of Shri Pushpraj Singh, stating therein that Maharaja Martand Singh Juedeo expired on 20.11.1995 at his residence Fort, Rewa (M.P.), but it is not admitted that Fort Rewa was his fixed place of residence of which he was the sole owner. His fixed place of residence



















































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top