Delhi District Court
Naveen Verma vs The State on 25 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHIV KUMAR :
DISTRICT JUDGE, (WEST)-02,
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
P.C. No. 81/2017
Naveen Verma
..... Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors
.....Respondents
Order on application under order 1 rule 10 CPC.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed under order 1 rule 10 CPC, read with section 151 CPC, on behalf of applicant Sh. Praveen Kumar Narang S/o late Smt. Prem Lata Narang and late Shri Dev Prakash Narang for impleadment as a party in the present matter.
2. It is averred in the application that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate left behind by late Shri Hirdesh Kumar Arora, son of late Shri Surinder Prakash Arora.
3. It is further averred in the application that petitioner has filed the false petition by wrongly stating that he is the sole surviving legal heir of late Shri Hirdesh Kumar Arora, falling under the entry No. IX P.C. No. 81-2017 Naveen Verma Vs State & Ors. 1/9 of Class-II of the Schedule of Hindu Succession Act, As such, the petitioner is liable to be booked for perjury.
4. It is further averred in the application that the applicant is also the legal heir of the deceased late Shri Hirdesh Kumar Arora and ought to have been made party in the present matter by the petitioner apart from other surviving legal heirs of Late Shri Hirdesh Kumar Arora, apart from the applicant.
5. It is further averred in the application that without prejudice to the above, it is further submitted that the deceased late Shri Hirdesh Kumar Arora otherwise has left behind a Will dated 25.02.2016 in favour of the applicant, for which the applicant has filed the petition for grant of probate.
6. It is further averred that in view of the above, the applicant is the necessary and proper party, who ought to have been impleaded by the petitioner to the present petition. It is further submitted that for just, necessary and proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the present matter, the applicant is liable to be made party to the present proceedings.
7. It is further averred that no prejudice would be caused to anybody, if the applicant is made party in the present matter, on the contrary great prejudice would be cause to the applicant.
P.C. No. 81-2017 Naveen Verma Vs State & Ors. 2/9
8. Reply to the present application has been filed on behalf of petitioner and it is contended by the petitioner that the application as filed by the applicant is not maintainable since the applicant has no locus standi to file the present application in the present case since he is a stranger to the said petition and hence the present application is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is further contended by the petitioner that the applicant does not fall under the categories of legal heirs as mentioned in the schedule of legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, or the legal representative of the deceased late Sh. Hirdesh Arora, against whose estate the present petition has been filed.
10. It is further contended by the petitioner that the application of the applicant merits rejection in limine since the applicant is neither necessary nor proper party to the present petition and hence the applicant under reply is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the present application is an abuse of process of law and the same has been filed with motive to cause delay in the present case and the application is liable to be rejected.
11. It is further contended by the petitioner that the application of the applicant deserves to be dismissed since the petitioner being the dominus litis of his lis and nobody can be permitted to joint/implead as respondent against the wish of the petitioner.
P.C. No. 81-2017 Naveen Verma Vs State & Ors. 3/9
12. It is further contended by the petitioner that the application, as filed by the applicant, is not maintainable since the same has malafidely been filed after lapse of almost five years, notwithstanding the fact that the factum of pendency of the present petition was very much within the knowledge of the applicant and hence the application is liable to be rejected.
13. Arguments heard. Case file perused.
14. In the present application, the applicant is seeking his right to implead as party on the basis of the Will dated 25.02.2016, executed by late Sh. Hirdesh Kumar Arora. The applicant is also claiming himself as legal heirs of deceased late Sh. Hirdesh Kumar Arora. The applicant has not disclosed his relation with the deceased Sh. Hirdesh Kumar Arora in the present application.
15. It has also come on record the applicant/ Sh. Praveen Kumar Narang has filed Probate Petition bearing no. 52/2019, titled Praveen Kumar Narang Vs State & Ors. and the same is pending in this court for 17.09.2025. I have perused the said case file. In this petition, the petitioner has attached original Will dated 25.02.2016 executed by late Sh. Hirdesh Kumar Arora and applicant is one of the beneficiary/legatee in the said Will.
16. In a judgment titled Yash Vardhan Mall Vs Tajesh Mall, 2017, SCC Online CAL 13093, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court P.C. No. 81-2017 Naveen Verma Vs State & Ors. 4/9 has discussed about the law regarding caveatable interest in the estate of testator for filing objections and has observed as under:
28. Having said that, it is difficult to imagine how an executor of a previous Will - whether admitted or not - can be denied the right to lodge a caveat in respect of a subsequent Will of the same testator.
Section 211 of the Act of 1925 recognises the executor of a Will of a deceased to be "his legal representative for all purposes, and all the property of the deceased person vest in him as such." Though no right as executor can be established unless a court grants a probate of the Will under which the right is claimed, as mandated by Section 213 of the said Act, property cannot be in limbo and, at least notionally, it vests in the executor of the Will subject to probate being granted later. It is said that till his last breath the testator remains the owner of his estate, but immediately thereafter it vests in the executor.
29. Apart from the rights conferred by the statute on an executor, even logically, the executor of a previous Will of the same testator has undeniable caveatable interest in respect of proceedings for the grant of probate or letters of administration of a subsequent Will of the same testator. Irrespective of whether an executor is also a legatee under the Will, the office comes with an obligation. The obligation of an executor is to obtain a probate of the Will and to administer the estate in accordance with the terms of the Will. Such obligation of the office clothes an executor with sufficient interest to lodge a caveat in respect of proceedings for the grant of probate or letters of administration in respect of a subsequent Will. If the subsequent Will is not accepted by the probate court, the earlier Will would govern the estate of the testator, subject to probate or letters of administration in respect thereof being obtained. That is the source of the right of the executor of a previous Will of a testator to lodge a caveat in proceedings for the grant of probate or letters of administration of a subsequent Will of the same testator.
30. The appellant herein had sufficient interest in the estate merely by citing his status as the executor of a previous Will, particularly since the previous Will in this case appears to be fairly admitted by the propounder of the subsequent Will. The appellant was also entitled to lodge a caveat by virtue of his position as a trustee in respect of the Trust created by the first Will. Though courts are wary in making broad generalisations, it is difficult to imagine a situation where an executor of a previous Will of the same testator or a trustee of a Trust created by a previous Will may not be seen to have sufficient interest to lodge a caveat in proceedings for the grant of probate or letters of administration in respect of a subsequent Will or to contest such grant.
P.C. No. 81-2017 Naveen Verma Vs State & Ors. 5/9
38. Accordingly, APO 359 of 2017 and GA 2552 of 2017 are disposed of by holding that though the appellant had caveatable interest to object to the grant of probate of the second Will propounded by the respondent herein, in the light of the affidavit in support of the caveat not disclosing any cogent ground to doubt the due execution of such Will of April 22, 2013, the matter does not call to be set down as a contentious cause. As such, the order impugned calls for no interference.
17. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has recognized the right of the executor of previous Will to object the grant of Probate of subsequent Will propounded by Sh. Tejas Mall/Respondent, but dismissed the appeal of appellant on the ground that the affidavit filed by appellant does not disclosed any cogent reason to doubt the due execution of Will dated 22.04.2013.
18. The appellant filed appeal against the dismissal of his appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the finding of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta that the appellant being executor of previous Will has caveatable interest to object the grant of Probate of subsequent Will dated 22.04.2013 and has also disclosed sufficient grounds in his affidavit to object the Probate petition & allowed the appeal of appellant and the relevant portion of judgment are mentioned below:
8. This Court in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha and Ors. (2008) 4 SCC p.300 considered the point of caveatable interest in a detailed manner and held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down. The existence of a caveatable interest would depend upon the fact situation of each case. In the instant case, the High Court found that the Appellant has caveatable interest, but the caveat filed by the Appellant was discharged on the ground that the affidavit filed in support thereof was bereft of an averment doubting the due execution of the Will dated 22.04.2013. For the P.C. No. 81-2017 Naveen Verma Vs State & Ors. 6/9 reasons stated supra, we are satisfied that the affidavit filed in support of the caveat fulfills the condition of Rule 25.
19. In a case titled Jagdish Singh & Sons Vs Pamela Manmohan Singh, 2010 AIR SCW 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if a person has slight interest in the estate of the testator, he is entitled to file caveat and contest the grant of Probate.
13. It is thus evident that apparently conflicting views have been expressed by coordinate Benches of this Court on the interpretation of the expression "caveatable interest". In Krishna Kumar Birla's case, the Bench did not approve the judgments of Calcutta High Court in Bhobosoonduri Dabee's case and Madras High Court in G. Jayakumar's case wherein it was held that any person having some interest in the estate of the deceased can come forward and oppose the grant of probate. As against this, in G. Gopal's case, the dictum that a person who is having a slight interest in the estate of the testator is entitled to file caveat and contest the grant of probate has been reiterated. This being the position, we feel that the issue deserves to be considered and decided by a larger Bench.
20. In a case tilted Saroj Aggarwal (Dead) through legal representative -Abhishek Aggarwal Vs YasheelJain 2017 SCC 14 285, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
3. A learned Single Judge considered the objection raised by the propounder to the caveat filed by Yasheel Jain and rejected the objection. The Single Judge was of the view that the provision creating the right to file a caveat could be availed by a person who is not a rank outsider and could claim to be an heir after the propounder was no longer alive.
In that view of the matter it was held that the caveat filed by Yasheel could not be discharged. Since the Single Judge did not discuss the claim of Yasheel based on an earlier Will, Yasheel filed a cross-objection before the Division Bench. The appeal and the cross objection were heard together. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the appellant and allowed the cross-objection by recording its prima facie satisfaction about existence of an earlier Will creating P.C. No. 81-2017 Naveen Verma Vs State & Ors. 7/9 caveatable interest in favour of Yasheel. The Division Bench did not approve the view of the learned Single Judge that Yasheel had a caveatable interest as an heir of the testator but the conclusion of the learned Single Judge was approved, albeit for different reasons as noted above.
9. Learned counsel for both the parties have addressed us at some length as to the meaning of the words "caveatable interest". The matter is no longer res integra in view of a detailed discussion of this term in the case of Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha[1]. Paragraphs 59 to 86 of this judgment refer to large number of authorities of this Court as well as various High Courts. The conclusions flowing from that judgment including the proposition of law in paragraph 86 clearly support the case of the respondents in both the appeals that they have a caveatable interest. The test which may be applied in the present case is : Does the claim of grant of probate prejudice the respondent's right because it defeats some other line of succession in terms whereof the respondent as a caveator asserted his/her right? Since the answer, in the facts of the case would be in the affirmative, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that respondents have a caveatable interest.
11. Since we have noted the main submission on behalf of the appellant earlier, it is deemed proper to point out that although the caveator Yasheel Jain did not file the original Will, the Division Bench has noted that he has filed a photocopy of the prior Will allegedly executed by the testator and has also produced the registered envelope through which such copy was sent to him by the testator along with the forwarding letter written by him. Upon such materials, the Division Bench recorded its prima facie satisfaction that the caveat should not be discharged. In the case of caveat by respondent Malati, the Division Bench noted the citations in the Will propounded by the appellant showing Malati to be only a maid servant but on the basis of totality of facts and circumstances it rightly came to the conclusion that a person by merely making a contrary statement in the Will cannot change a real relationship if it actually existed and hence at least arguable case in favour of claim of Malati as regards her relation with the testator has been established and hence she deserves to be permitted to contest the probate proceeding. The Court, at the same time made it clear that whether Malati is really a lawful widow of the testator or not cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the probate proceedings and P.C. No. 81-2017 Naveen Verma Vs State & Ors. 8/9 therefore, only a prima facie view was possible to decide Saroj Agarwalla(Dead) Thr Lr Abhishek ... vs Yasheel Jain on 24 October, 2016 Indian Kanoon -
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/55918808/whether her caveat should be discharged or not.
21. In view of the above said judgment, it is settled law that the legatee/beneficiary under the Will of the deceased/Testator has caveatable interest to contest the probate petition for issuance of letters of administration filed by any other person.
22. In view of the above said judgments, the applicant being beneficiary/legatee under the Will of late Sh. Hirdesh Kumar Arora for the administration of whose estate, the present petition has been filed, has caveatable interest to contest the present petition by filing objections. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed and applicant is allowed to file objections within 30 days from today with advance copy to ld. counsel for the petitioner. Application stands disposed off accordingly.
SHIV Digitally signed by
SHIV KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.08.25
16:21:21 +0530
Announced in open Court (SHIV KUMAR)
today on 25th August, 2025 DJ-02, Court no. 127,
West Distt.THC Delhi.
P.C. No. 81-2017 Naveen Verma Vs State & Ors. 9/9