Back
2005(3) JLJ 173
S.S. Jha, J.
Vijendra (Brijendra) Singh Yadav v. Smt. Rajkumari Yadav and others
Writ Petition No. 1731 of 2004 : against order of Additional District Judge, Gwalior, passed in Civil Suit No. 16-A of 2003;
Decided on 8.7.2005.
This petition is filed against the order passed by.... Additional District Judge Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 16-N03. [Para 1
By this order preliminary issue No.6 has been decided wherein it is held that Datar Singh Yadav has executed a Will at Bhopal on 28.3.1998 in favour of plaintiff and he has further pleaded that a forged Will has been prepared by defendants No. 1 to 3.
Objection was raised that said Will cannot be examined in the Court unless probate has been obtained. Court while deciding the application has held that only probate Court has right to adjudicate the validity of the Will. [Para 2
Held: In case of two contesting or rival Wills, which are not covered by section 57(a) and (b) of the Indian Succession Act, obtaining of probate is not compulsory and jurisdiction of the civil Court would not be barred. Division Bench has considered the applicability of Will made by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, who is residing outside the territories mentioned in section 57(a) of the Indian Succession Act is not covered by the said Act. In other words it is not mandatory to get probate of Will by Hindu, who is not residing within the territories mentioned in section 57(a) of the Indian Succession Act. 1999.(1) MPJR 352 relied on. 1966 MPLJ SN 8, 1984 MPLJ SN 6, 1982 MPWN 297, 1987 JLJ 778, AIR 1952 Nag. 88, AIR 1945 Nag. 237 and 1986 JLJ 806 discussed and relied on. 1987 JLJ 198 and AIR 1992 MP 224 do not lay down correct law. [Para 2 & 3
(2) Succession Act, 1925--Ss. 213(2) and 57(a)-- probate of Will under S. 213(2) -- is applicable to those who are residing within the territories mentioned in S. 57(a). AIR 1962 Pun. 382, AIR 1966 Pun. 385, AIR 1968 Pun. 108, AIR 1978 All. 268, AIR 1997 All. 158 and AIR 1961 Raj. 40 relied on. [Para 3
(3) Precedent--decisions of High Court--are binding on subordinate Courts-- question not determined by Supreme Court -subordinate Court is duty bound to follow binding precedent of High Court. [Para 6
(4) Civil P.C., 1908--S.113--subordinate Court doubting correctness of decision of High Court--should seek reference--cannot decide itself that Division Bench decision is incorrect and single Bench decision is correct--precedents should not be dealt with without examining facts thereof. [Para 7
(5) Succession Act, 1925--Ss. 213(2) and 57(a)--probate need not be taken where desposition does not relate to immovable property in Madras or when disposition does not relate to immovable property. AIR 1930 Mad. 956 relied on. [Para 3
(6) Jurisdiction--cannot be conferred by consent of parties--can be exercised only when provided for either in Constitution on in laws made by Legislature. (1993) 2 SCC 507 followed. [Para 4
(7) Succession Act, 1925--Ss. 272 and 213--duly probated Will--cannot be made ineffective by arbitrator when execution was not denied. (2001) 1 SCC 486 followed. [Para 5
¼1½ mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925& &/kkjk 57¼d½] 57¼[k½ rFkk 213¼2½&fganw }kjk fcy dk çkscsV&fojks/kh ;k çfr}a}h foysa /kkjk 57¼d½ vkSj ¼[k½ }kjk vkPNkfnr ugha gks rc fy;k tkuk vko‘;d ugha&,sls ekeyksa esa flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk oftZr ughaA
;g ;kfpdk------vij ftyk U;k;k/kh‘k] Xokfy;j }kjk flfoy okn Ø-16&,@03 esa ikfjr vkns‘k ds fo#) Qkby dh xbZ gSaA ¼iSjk 1½
bl vkns‘k }kjk çkjafHkd fook|d Ø-6 fofuf‘pr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd nkrkjflag ;kno us 28-3-1998 dks Hkksiky esa oknh ds i{k esa foy fu"ikfnr dh gS rFkk oknh us ;g vfHkokd~ vkSj fd;k gS fd çfroknh Ø-1 ls 3 }kjk dwVjfpr foy rS;kj dh xbZ gSA vkifRrÙk mBkbZ xbZ Fkh fd tc rd çkscsV vfHkçkIr ugha dj fy;k tk,] mDr fcy dk U;k;ky; esa ijh{k.k ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vkosnu fofu‘pr djrs gq, U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd dsoy çkscsV U;k;ky; dks foy dh fof/kekU;rk U;k;fu.khZr djus dk vf/kdkj gSA ¼iSjk 2½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % Hkkjrh; mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 57¼d½ vkSj ¼[k½ }kjk vkPNkfnr ugha gksa ,slh nks fojks/kh ;k çfr}a}h foyksa dh n‘kk esa çkscsV vfHkçkIr fd;k tkuk vfuok;Z ugha gSa rFkk flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk oftZr ugha gksxhA [kaM U;k;ihB us Hkkjrh; mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 57¼d½ esa mfYyf[kr {ks= ls ckgj fuokljr fganw] ckS)] fl[k ;k tSu }kjk cukbZ xbZ foy ij blds ykxw gksus ij fopkj fd;k gS] og mDr vf/kfu;e }kjk vkPNkfnr ugha gSA vU; ‘‘kCnksa esa] ,sls fganw }kjk tks Hkkjrh; mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 57¼d½ esa mfYyf[kr {ks= ds Hkhrj fuokljr ugha gS] foy dk çkscsV çkIr djuk vkKkid ugha gSA 1999¼1½ ,e ih ts vkj 352 voyafcrA 1966 ,e ih ,y ts ,l ,u 8] 1984 ,e ih ,y ts ,l ,u 6] 1982 e-ç-] ohDyh uksV~l 297] 1987 ts ,y ts 778] , vkb vkj 1952 ukx] 88] , vkb vkj 1945 ukx] 237 rFkk 1986 ts ,y ts 806 foosfpr vkSj voyafcrA 1987 ts ,y ts 198 rFkk , vkb vkj 1992 e-ç- 224 esa lgh fof/k vf/kdfFkr ughaA ¼iSjk 2 ,oa 3½
¼2½ mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925& &/kkjk 213¼2½ rFkk 57¼d½&/kkjk 213¼2½ ds v/khu foy dk çkscsV&/kkjk 57¼d½ esa mfYyf[kr {ks=ksa ds Hkhrj fuokljr O;fDr;ksa dks ykxw gSaA , vkb vkj 1962 iatkc 382] , vkb vkj 1966 iatkc 385] , vkb vkj 1968 iatkc 108] , vkb vkj 1978 byk- 268] , vkb vkj 1977 byk- 158 rFkk , vkb vkj 1961 jkt- 40 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 3½
¼3½ iwoZ fu.kZ;& &mPp U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p;&v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ij vkc)dj gSa&ç‘u mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vo/kkfjr ugha&v/khuLFk U;k;ky;] mPp U;k;ky; ds vkc)dj iwoZ fu.kZ; dk vuqlj.k djus ds fy, drZO; }kjk vkc) gSA ¼iSjk 6½
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 113&v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks mPp U;k;ky; dk fofu‘p; lgh gksus ds ckjs esa lansg&funsZ‘k fd;k tkuk pkfg,&Loa fofuf‘pr ugha dj ldrk fd [kaM U;k;ihB dk fofu‘p; lgh ugha gS] ,dy U;k;ihB dk fofu‘p; lgh gS&iwoZ fu.kZ;ksa dk foospu muds rF;ksa dk ijh{k.k fd, fcuk ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 7½
¼5½ mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925& &/kkjk 213¼2½ rFkk 57¼d½&çkscsV fy;k tkuk vko‘;d ugha tgka O;;u enzkl fLFkr LFkk;j laifÙk ls lacaf/kr ugha vFkok tc O;;u LFkkoj laifÙk ls lacaf/kr ughaA , vkb vkj 1930 enzkl 1930 enzkl 956 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 3½
¼6½ vf/kdkfjrk& &i{kdkjksa dh lEefr }kjk çnÙk ugha dh tk ldrha&rc gh ç;qDr dh tk ldrh gS tc lafo/kku esa ;k fo/kku&eaMy }kjk cukbZ xbZ fof/k esa micaf/kr gksA ¼1993½ 2 ,l lh lh 507 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 4½
¼7½ mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925& &/kkjk 272 rFkk 213& ≦d~ :i ls çkscsV çkIr foy&fu"iknu dk çR;k[;ku ugha fd;k x;k rc e/;LFk }kjk fu‘çHkkoh ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼2001½ 1 ,l lh lh 486 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 5½
1. This petition is filed against the order passed by Shri Rajendra Mahajan, Additional District Judge Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 16-N03. This order is passed by him and he has signed the order as Special Judge (Atrocities) Gwalior, but he has not mentioned his specific post as Additional District Judge. He has not kept in mind that he is deciding a civil case and not the special case.
2. By this order preliminary issue No.6 has been decided wherein it is held that Datar Singh Yadav has executed a Will at Bhopal on 28.3.1998 in favour of plaintiff and he has further pleaded that a forged Will has been prepared by defendants No.1 to 3. Objection was raised that said Will cannot be examined in the Court unless probate has been obtained. Court while deciding the application has held that only probate Court has right to adjudicate the validity of the Will relying upon the judgment in the case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) through LRs. v. Jasjit Singh and others [(1993) 2 SCC 507]. Contrary view has been taken in two judgments that the validity of Will can only be examined in a probate proceedings. Previous judgments of this Court were not considered by the two Single Bench judgments and law settled earlier. Dispute was referred to the Larger Bench and which has been decided in the case of Phool Singh and two others v. Smt. Kosabai and two others [1999(1) MPJR 352]. Division Bench has referred to various judgments of this Court and other High Courts and has held that in case of two contesting or rival "Wills", which are not covered by section 57(a) and (b) of the Indian Succession Act, obtaining of probate is not compulsory and jurisdiction of the civil Court would not be barred. Division Bench has considered the applicability of Will made by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, who is residing outside the territories mentioned in section 57(a) of the Indian Succession Act, is not covered by the said Act. In other words, it is not mandatory to get probate of Will by Hindu, who is not residing within the territories mentioned in section 57(a) of the Indian Succession Act.
3. Earlier view of this Court was considered by this Court in Lachhman Singh v. Smt. Brishbhan Dulari (1966 MPLJ SN 8), Marwad Saw Mills v. Nemichand (1984 MPLJ SN 6), Chandmal v. Devisingh (1982 MPWN 297), Shobha Kshirsagar v. Janki Kshirsagar and another (1987 JLJ 778 = 1988 MPLJ 28) and Ruprao Ranoji v. Ramrao Bhagwantrao (AIR 1952 Nagpur 88) and Ahemad Sio Abdul Latif and another v. Ghisia Hira Teli and another (AIR 1945 Nagpur 237) and Madangopal and another v. Smt. Ramjiwanibai and others [1986 JLJ 806 = 1987 CCLJ (MP) 28], wherein it is held that in a case of a Hindu executing a Will in Madhya Pradesh regarding the property situated within the territories of Madhya Pradesh, probate of a "Will" need not compulsorily be obtained, in view of section 213(2) of the Act. Contrary view has been taken in the case of Ram Dutta v. Krishna Datta (1987 JLJ 198) and in the case of Ramshankar v. Balakdas (AIR 1992 MP 224). It is held that Ramshankar's case (supra) and Ram Dutta (supra) does not lay down correct law. Under section 213(2) probate of 'Will' is applicable to those who are residing within the territories mentioned in section 57(a) of the Indian Succession Act. Punjab High Court in the case of Ram Chand v. Sardara Singh (AIR 1962 Pun. 382), Dr. (Mrs.) Joginder Kaur Malik and another v. Malik Anup Singh (AIR 1966 Pun. 385), M/s. Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand Sahani and others (AIR 1968 Pun. 108), Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhaiyaji, Jageshwar Dayal Bajpai (AIR 1978 All. 268), Administrator General, Allahabad v. Dharamvir (AIR 1997 All. 158) and Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mst. Jadav v, Ram Swarup and another AIR 1961 Raj. 40) has taken a view that probate is not necessary in• the light of plain and simple language of section 57 and section 213 of the Act. Contrary view taken in the case of Ram Dutta (supra) and Ramshankar (supra)
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
