Delhi District Court
Shri Jungli (Since Deceased) vs State on 28 August, 2014
Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE06: CENTRAL: DELHI
MPC No.21/06
Shri Jungli (since deceased)
represented through his LRs:
i). Sh Om Prakash, S/o Sh Jungli
died and represented by:
a) Umed Singh Son
b) Sumit Son
c) Naveen minor Son
d) Ms. Darshana @ Dayawati Daughter
e) Ms. Mamta Daughter
f) Smt. Krishna Devi Widow.
ii). Sh Sarwan Kumar, S/o Sh Jungli,
iii). Sh Sudesh Kumar, S/o Sh Jungli.
All r/o Nai Basti, Pana Mamoorpur,
Narela, Delhi - 40.
iv). Smt. Satto, W/o Sh. Dilawar Singh,
R/o Village and P.O Attode, Nangla,
Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P. ....Petitioners
Versus
1. State.
Result : Petition allowed 1/44
Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06
2. Smt. Basanti,
Widow of Late Sh Inder Singh,
3. Sh Daryao Singh,
S/o Late Sh Inder Singh,
4. Sh Joginder @ Yoginder Singh,
S/o late Sh Inder Singh,
All R/o Village Mamoorpur,
Narela, Delhi40.
Presently at H. No. 57, Sector 17A,
Gurgaon, Haryana. .....Respondents/Objectors
(MORE THAN EIGHT YEARS OLD CASE )
Unique case I.D No.
:
0240IC0232622006
Date of Institution : 06.10.2004
Date of Reserving Judgment : 23.08.2014
Date of Judgment : 28.08.2014
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 263 OF
THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925
READ WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF
THE SAID ACT AND SECTION 151 AND
ORDER 1 RULE 10 CPC ON BEHALF
OF APPLICANTS/ OBJECTORS.
Result : Petition allowed 2/44
Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment decides an application of the applicants namely Smt. Basanti, W/o Late Sh Inder Singh, Sh Daryao Singh, S/o late Sh Inder Singh and Sh Joginder @ Yoginder Singh S/o Late Sh Inder Singh under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 whereby which they are seeking revocation and annulment of order dated 26.4.2002 which granted letters of administration in favour of the petitioner namely Sh Jungli (since deceased).
2. According to the petitioner, the letter of administration had been granted by the then District Judge, Delhi vide judgment/order dated 26.4.2002 in favour of now deceased Sh Jungli in respect of agricultural land measuring 46 Bighas 8 Biswas comprising in Khasra nos. 48/2 (416), 3(416), 9(416), 147(005), 48/8/1 (30), 8/2 (116), 7(416), 4(416) totaling to 14 Bighas 8 Biswas and Khasra 52/18 (301), 22(416), 23(308), 53/2 (416), 3(313), 8(310), 12 (416) total 31 Bighas 07 Biswas and Khasra no. 505 (009) situated in revenue estate of village Mamurpur, Delhi being the estate of the deceased Sh Chandgi @ Chander Bhan S/o late Sh Maya Ram. It is submitted that said Sh Chandgi had left behind him Smt. Chander Wati and Ms. Bimla being his wife and daughter as his legal heirs but they were not impleaded as a party in the probate case no. 144/01. It is submitted that the fact that Sh. Chandgi was not a bachelor is verifiable from the revenue Result : Petition allowed 3/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 records and also from the decision of the Court of Financial Commissioner, Delhi passed on 28.3.1980 in case no. 13/79CA in which Sh Jungli and Smt. Chander Wati were the petitioners. It is further submitted that out of the total land measuring 46 Bighas 8 Biswas, the applicants herein had purchased 45 Bighas 16 Biswas of land from Smt. Chander Wati, widow of deceased Sh Chandgi by way of four registered sale deeds dated 10.4.1981 individually executed for 11 Bighas 9 Biswas piece of land in their favour as said Smt. Chander Wati was the owner/Khatedar of the said land at the relevant time. The said land measuring 45 Bighas 16 Biswas was mutated in the names of the present applicants and Sh Inder Singh on 13.5.1981 and after the death of Sh Inder Singh, his share was mutated in the names of the applicants Sh Daryao Singh and Sh Joginder equally being his sons. Thus, the present applicants became the owner of the above land out of which they sold 31 Bighas 7 Biswas of land situated in Khasra no.
52. They claim to be the owner of the remaining land measuring 14 Bighas and 9 Biswas. It is also claimed that the applicants got sanction from the MCD on 4.3.1991 to use a part of the land as a farm house and the same is assessed as such by the house tax department/MCD. The applicants also have an electricity connection on the said land in their name.
2.1. During the proceedings for execution of land vide notification no. F11 (6) 99/L&B/LA dated 2.5.2001 under Result : Petition allowed 4/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, award no. 28/2003/2004 in respect of the land in question was passed on 17.2.2004 in favour of the applicants herein. The applicants obtained non encumbrance certificate dated 27.9.2004 from the Tehsildar Narela, Delhi in respect of the land in question and when applicant Sh Daryao Singh went to the office of Land Acquisition Collector, Kanjhawla Delhi on 29.9.2004 to collect the cheques of the compensation amount, the Tehsildar concerned informed that Sh Jungli had obtained a letter of administration in respect of the said land. After obtaining the said information, the present application was filed. The applicant Sh Daryao Singh also acts as an attorney of his brother/applicant Sh Joginder. It is averred that the now deceased Sh. Jungli intentionally, willfully, knowingly, fraudulently and deliberately filed incorrect schedule of property and relatives of the deceased Sh Chandgi to procure the letter of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased. It is submitted that Sh Jungli wrongly pleaded/alleged and also filed a wrong affidavit that he is the sole legal heir of the deceased who was a bachelor and issue less. It has been stated that the widow of deceased Smt Chander Wati is still surviving and residing at her parental home i.e village Sirdhana, District Sonepat, Haryana, while their daughter Ms. Bimla has died. It is further in the petition that the deceased Sh. Jungli had full knowledge of the sale transaction w.e.f the date of sale, he being Result : Petition allowed 5/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 the joint khatedar having one half share of the land comprising in Khasra No. 48 and that he sold his share to some other person in the year 1985 which fact was intentionally concealed from the Court that granted the letter of administration. It is further in the petition that Sh Jungli had no locus standi to file the petition either on the date of its filing or on the date of the death of deceased Sh Chandgi. It is further averred that the letter of administration was procured by Sh Jungli in connivance with his sister Smt Kalawati as she had full knowledge of the facts of the case but intentionally and fraudulently made a false and incorrect statement before the Court. It is further submitted that the now deceased Sh Jungli deliberately and fraudulently did not implead the applicants as a party to the probate petition even when the applicants were not only interested but also necessary parties. The petition is supported with the affidavit of one of the applicants Sh Daryao Singh. The applicants had impleaded Sh Jungli and after his death, Sh. Om Prakash, Sh Sarwan Kumar and Sh Sudesh Kumar, all sons of deceased Sh Jungli being his legal heirs while also impleading Smt. Satto, wife of one Sh. Dilawar Singh as respondents/non applicants. On account of death of Sh Om Prakash, his legal heirs as described in the title of the petition were later impleaded as non applicants.
3. On institution of the present petition, the probate file was summoned and received in this Court. Notice of the revocation Result : Petition allowed 6/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 petition was issued and served on the non applicants. On 2.11.04, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Non applicants have filed reply to the revocation petition claiming that it is not maintainable on facts as well as record. It is submitted that petition has been filed with a view to blackmail the non applicants. It is further claimed that the applicants have no right, title or interest in the property for which letter of administration was granted as they are neither the legal heirs of deceased Sh Chandgi nor they have inherited any right in the subject property. It is further averred that as the land in question has already been acquired, dispute, if any, in respect of the disbursement of the compensation can only be decided by the Ld. LAC. It is further averred that Sh Chandgi was a bachelor at the time of his death and thus his entire estate has been inherited by Sh Jungli who rightly obtained the letter of administration. The agricultural land left behind Sh. Chandgi is said to have been governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act which was inherited by Sh Jungli under Section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. It is further averred that Smt Chander Wati was not wife of deceased Sh Chandgi nor any marriage had taken place between them at any point of time. It is denied that Ms. Bimla was the daughter of deceased Sh Chandgi. It is pointed out that Smt. Chander Wati is wife of one Sh Ram Phal, S/o Sh Ram Singh, R/o village Sitawali, District Sonepat, Haryana whose affidavit was also filed Result : Petition allowed 7/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 alongwith the reply. It is submitted that marriage between Sh Ram Phal and Smt Chander Wati was solemnized in 1968 according to Hindu rites. Thus, the question of marriage of deceased Sh Chandgi with Smt.Chander Wati does not arise at all. Thus, it is claimed that Smt Chander Wati had no right, title or interest to execute the alleged sale deeds in favour of the applicants. Further, the said sale deeds are stated to be manipulated by the applicants with malafide intention. 3.1. On merits, it is not disputed that letter of administration was granted in the manner stated. Sh Chandgi is said to be the real brother of Sh Jungli. The facts constituted in preliminary objections have been amplified and the contents of the petition have been denied. It is further pointed out that Sh Jungli was illiterate person and had no knowledge about the case decided by the Court of Financial Commissioner on 28.3.1980 as it was Sh Chandgi who used to look after the said case. The absence of knowledge is accordingly claimed in respect of impleadment of Smt Chander Wati as a party in the matter decided by the Financial Commissioner and in any case, such impleadment is said to be wrong having no legal consequence upon the rights of Sh Jungli. It is further pointed out that Sh Jungli had never seen the revenue records but he continued in actual physical and cultivatory possession of agricultural land left by deceased Sh Chandgi. It is averred that the applicants had never remained in Result : Petition allowed 8/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 possession of the land as alleged. The non applicants denied that the applicants got sanction on 4.3.1991 from the MCD as alleged. It is denied that there is any electricity connection in their name as alleged. It is pointed out that no farm house was ever made by the applicants as alleged. The proceedings with respect to acquisition of land have not been disputed. It is also pointed out that objections have been filed before the LAC under Section 9 and under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act as also a reference under Section 18 which was pending at the relevant time. It is also pointed out that a mutation had been carried out in the petitioner's name at the time of assessment of the compensation and announcement of the award. It is further in the reply that the applicants had full knowledge of the order by virtue of which letter of administration were granted in favour of the non applicants. It is denied that he ever filed incorrect schedule of the property and relatives of the deceased Sh Chandgi in the manner alleged. The non applicants denies any knowledge of the alleged sale and submits that even otherwise, said sale is void abinitio because Smt. Chander Wati had no right whatsoever to sell the property left by the deceased Sh Chandgi as she had no relation with him. It is further denied that the applicants are joint Khatedar having one half share of the land comprising in Khasra no. 48. It is denied that the non applicants ever acted in connivance with Ms Bimla as alleged. It Result : Petition allowed 9/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 is accordingly prayed that the revocation petition may be dismissed with special costs. In support of the reply, Sh Jungli filed his own affidavit.
4. A rejoinder was also filed by the applicants which is primarily a reiteration of the facts constituted in the revocation petition as correct and also constitute denial of the facts pleaded in the reply. In addition thereto, it is submitted that the non applicant Sh Jungli had filed the petition for grant of letters of administration after the period of 22 years of the death of Sh Chander Bhan @ Chandgi @ Chandrey and did not file the documents of the period when the application was filed and mis led the Court by filing old records. The applicants thus claim to be the transferees from the LRs of Sh Chander Bhan. It is reiterated that Sh Chander Bhan was married with Smt Chander Wati @ Chandro @ Chanderpati at the time of his death and they had also a daughter by the name of Bimla. It is pointed out that mutation of inheritance of Sh Chander Bhan @ Chandgi @ Chandrey was sanctioned on 15.2.1980 in favour of his widow and daughter respectively bearing no. 318/1980. Its copy has been relied upon. Copy of birth certificate of Bimla has also been relied. It is further pointed out that subsequently, Bimla died and mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of her mother Smt Chander Wati on 17.3.1981 bearing no. 424/1980 which fact is supported by the entries in Khatoni for the year 197778 and Result : Petition allowed 10/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 198384. It is further pointed out that thereafter Smt. Chander wati sold her land to the applicants in whose favour mutation No. M124/198081 was sanctioned on 12.5.1981 by the Tehsildar Narela and implemented in the Khatoni of the year 198384 Mamoorpur, Delhi prior to filing of the petition dated 3.8.2001. It is also pointed out that the non applicant Sh Jungli and deceased Sh Chander Bhan @ Chandgi @ Chandrey had filed an appeal in another case before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi during the pendency of which Sh Chandgi died and Smt. Chander Wati, his widow was brought on record as his LR. This fact is said to be in the knowledge of non applicant Sh Jungli. Relevant documents have been relied. Copy of Identity card of Smt. Chander Wati has been relied upon. It is submitted that since all these facts had taken place even prior to filing of the probate petition, Sh Jungli is now estopped to take said plea. The affidavit filed by Sh. Ram Phal is said to be forged. It is submitted that Sh Ram Phal did not sign the said affidavit. It is pointed out that the name of wife of Sh Ram Phal is Smt. Nanhi. It is further denied that Sh Jungli did not see the revenue records for 25 years. It is further pointed out that after the sale, the applicants were in possession of the land and Sh Jungli was not in possession of the agricultural land after its sale. It is submitted that even in LAC records, the amount was assessed in the name of the applicants and there was no entry in the records showing Result : Petition allowed 11/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 the name of Sh Jungli. It is submitted that at the very last stage i.e 2.1.04 he got the entry of the order dated 26.4.02 of the probate case made in order to get the disputed amount after two years. It is further pointed out that part of land under sale was further transferred by the applicant to other persons who have received compensation of the land and Sh Jungli did not take any action for the said amount so far.
5. As stated earlier, the revocation petition was initially filed against Sh Jungli who was the petitioner in the probate petition no. 144/01. He subsequently died on 26.8.2006. An application for impleadment of his LRs was allowed on 2.1.2007. By this time, the evidence of the revacators was still in the process of recording which is finally closed upon the statement of the third applicant Sh Joginder Singh on 24.10.08. Subsequent thereto, the evidence of the non applicants was recorded. During this process, Sh Om Prakash, one of the LRs of deceased Jungli also died. His LRs were substituted on record by the orders of the Court dated 26.4.2011. The evidence finally concluded on 31.5.2014.
6. The Ld. Predecessor Court on the basis of the material recorded, settled the following issues on 19.4.2005 viz;
1. Whether the letters of administration dated 26.4.2000 was obtained by the non applicant/respondent by concealment of facts and playing fraud ? OPA.
2. Whether the deceased was survived by a wife and daughter Result : Petition allowed 12/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 at the time of his death ?OPA.
3. Whether the letters of administration is liable to be revoked ? OPA.
4. Relief
7. As a matter of fact, the applicants also filed an application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) 1963 dated 11.10.04 for initiating an inquiry and taking legal action with respect to commission of offences punishable under Section 193/196/199/200/463/464/465/467/ 468/471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioner Sh. Jungli and the respondent no. 2 Smt. Kalawati. Interestingly, no formal notice of this application was issued to either the now deceased Sh. Jungli or Smt. Kalawati. However, on 19.4.05 that is the date when issues were settled, Ld. Predecessor directed that with respect to the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C, the applicants' evidence led in revocation application shall also be treated as evidence on the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. In order to cut short any further controversy in this regard, I may say at this juncture itself that Smt Kalawati has never been put to notice of this application while Sh Jungli has now died. In these circumstances, nothing useful is going to be served by keeping the said application pending particularly when the parties to this lis have led and concluded their evidence with respect to the main petition only.
Result : Petition allowed 13/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 Nevertheless, I shall deal with the application after having appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties.
8. As stated earlier, the applicants/revocators examined their witnesses first and in all they examined 11 witnesses nomenclature as RW 1 to RW 11.
APPLICANTS EVIDENCE 8.1. I shall begin with the main witness of the applicants who in this case is Sh Daryao Singh i.e applicant no. 3. He produced his evidence by way of affidavit ExPA and is numbered as RW8. He has deposed in accordance with the pleadings and has relied on several documents. Exhibit numbers were renumbered from time to time. In short, he produced certified copy of Khatoni for the year 197778 as ExOW1/1 (5 sheets) depicting that Sh Chander Bhan had half share in Khata nos. 47/47 & 162/161 and full share in Khata No. 244/244 Min. This very document was later proved by Sh Satya Prakash, Patwari as RW 6 who had brought the Khatoni record of Khasra No. 48239 as well as Khasra no. 147. He also identified the signature of Sh P.S Sehrawat, Office Kanoongo on the above documents. 8.2. RW 8 produced the original birth certificate of Vimla @ Bimla which is ExOW1/2 which bears that a female child namely Bimla was born to Smt Chanderpati and Sh Chander Bhan on 5.6.1978. 8.3. As RW 8, the witness also produced certified copy of mutation order ExOW1/3 depicting that after the death of Sh Result : Petition allowed 14/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 Chandgi, mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his wife Smt. Chanderwati and his daughter Bimla. The witness further produced certified copy of mutation order ExOW1/4 to the effect that after the death of his daughter Bimla, the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Smt Chanderwati. 8.4. In support of sale of 45 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land by Smt Chanderwati to the applicants, their father and mother Smt. Basanti, the applicants relied on certified copies of sale deeds as ExOW1/5 to ExOW1/8 respectively.
8.5. Certified copy of ExOW1/9 is the sanction of mutation of sale in favour of all the three applicants. This fact is also proved by RW 6 Sh Satya Prakash, Patwari. The deponent testifies that they sold 31 Bighas and 7 Biswas of land to one Sh Jugal Batra (RW9) and his three brothers who in turn sold the same to Vikram Impex (Private) Ltd and the said land falling in Rect. 52 and Rect. 53 and has been acquired vide award no. 24/20022003, certified copy of which is ExOW1/10. This fact was also proved by Sh Shambir Patwari, who had brought the original file of Award aforesaid of which the certified copy is ExOW1/10. Payment of this award was made to Vikram Impex Private Ltd. 8.6. In order to prove that after the sale, the applicants were left with area of 14 Bighas 8 Biswas out of Rect. 48, they relied on certified copy of Khatoni for the year 198384 and 200001 which are ExOW1/11 (three sheets) and ExOW1/12 respectively.
Result : Petition allowed 15/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 8.7. After the death of Sh Inder Singh in the year 1992, mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his remaining brothers and during the life time of father of RW 8, names of purchasers were recorded in the Khasra Girdawaries i.e ExOW1/13 to ExOW1/27. Of all these documents, RW 7 Sh. Satbir Singh, Halqa Patwari proved the Khasra Girdawaries certificates ExOW1/20 to ExOW1/27. This witness had produced the entire upto date record of Khasra Girdawaries for the year 19941995. Also of these documents, ExOW1/17 (17 sheets) has also been proved by RW 6 Sh Satya Prakash, Patwari. He also deposed that the record prior to the year 1991 had been destroyed vide order dated 10.11.2005 and the certified copies of khasra girdawaries dated 10.8.2005, which are part of judicial record, had been issued from their office i.e Kanoongo branch, Tehsil Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi, prior to said destruction of record. He identified the certified copies with respect to record upto the year 199394 . 8.8. RW 8 got a Farm House sanctioned in Rect. 48 from the MCD vide original letter of sanction ExOW1/28. In order to show that said Farm House was assessed to House Tax, the witness also produced the original assessment letter in this regard which is ExOW1/29. In order to show that an electricity connection existed in the name of RW 8 in the farm house, he produced copies of several electricity bills in his name in respect to the above property which are collectively ExOW1/30 to ExOW1/38.
Result : Petition allowed 16/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 This fact is also proved by Sh Dalip Singh, Section Officer, NDPL, Narela as RW 11 who produced the complete record of bills in respect of electricity connection in Khasra no. 48/2 in the name of RW 8 Sh Daryao Singh bearing K. No. 129581 and the computerized attested record for the payment received is ExRW11/A. These are for the period from May 1992 to March 2004.
8.9. In order to show that the remaining land of 14Bighas and 8 Biswas was acquired vide Award No. 28/20032004, he produced copy of Award as ExOW1/39. This document is proved by RW 8 Sh Shamvir Patwari, DC Office Kanjawala Land Acquisition Branch, who also identified the signature of Office Kanoongo thereupon. He had also brought the original award. RW 8 further deposed that the notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ExOW1/40 to ExOW1/43 were received. The original of these documents were produced by RW 8 Sh Shamvir Patwari who testified that the certified copies have been issued by their office. As a matter of fact, RW 8 Sh Shamvir was later examined as RW 10 on 5.5.06.
8.10. The Non Encumbrance Certificate is ExOW1/44. The witness further produced copy of judgment of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi in Revision Petition filed by Sh Jungli titled as Jungli v Satpal, the judgment, order and applications of which are ExOW1/45, ExOW1/46 and ExOW1/47 respectively. This Result : Petition allowed 17/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 record was reexhibited as ExRW4/OW1/45 to ExRW4/OW1/47 respectively in the testimony of RW 4 Sh Satish Verma, UDC in the Court of Financial Commissioner, Delhi who produced the original summoned record of case file no. 13/79. 8.11. Lastly, the witness relied on copy of Electoral Roll ExOW1/48. This document was formally got proved through Sh. Navin Dutt, LDC (RW1), office of Chief Election Commissioner, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, who produced the voter list of the year 1980 of East Delhi Parliamentary Constituency. The voter list pertaining to polling booth no. 176 area Nai Basti, Mamurpur, Narela, Delhi was produced in which name of Jungli Ram appears at serial no. 107; name of Smt. Chandro, W/o Chandrey, aged 45 years appears at serial no. 118 . The witness identified the signature of Chief Election Officer Sh T.N Meena at point A on this document which is renumbered as ExRW1/OW1/48. This witness was duly cross examined by ld. Counsel for the petitioner. He was not confronted with any document.
9. The next material witness of the applicants is Sh Jugal Batra who produced his affidavit in evidence as ExRW9/A wherein he deposed to have purchased part of land in question alongwith his brothers from Sh Inder Singh in the year 1989 which they later sold to Vikram Impex (Private) Ltd by registered sale deed dated 19.5.2001. The said land was acquired vide award no. 24/20022003 and the said purchaser received the compensation Result : Petition allowed 18/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 in respect of land acquisition without any objection from any one. The witness was duly cross examined.
10. I have already given extract of testimonies of RW1, RW2 (later examined as RW11), RW3, RW4, RW6, RW7 as well as RW8 (later examined as RW 10). So far as the RW 5 Sh K.S Chauhan, Draftsman, Building Head Quarters, Town Hall, Delhi, is concerned, he was called in to prove the record in respect of letter of sanction of farm house ExOW1/28 which is letter dated 4.3.91. The document was renumbered as ExRW5/OW1/28.
11. No other witnesses were examined by the applicants.
Non applicants' Evidence
12. One of the LRs of deceased Sh Om Prakash, son of deceased Jungli namely Sh.Umed Singh examined himself as PW 1. He filed his affidavit ExPW1/A in evidence and has deposed in according of pleadings. He did not rely on any document in his examination in chief. He was cross examined by ld. Counsel for applicants/revocators.
13. They further examined one Hawaldar Bhawani Singh, Rajputana Riffels, Delhi Cantt as PW 2. He produced the record in respect of one Sh Ramphal Singh (Nayak) S/o Sh Ram Singh, R/o Village Sattawali, Tehsil Sonepat, Haryana. According to the record, said Ramphal Singh retired on 28.2.91. He had nominated his wife namely Smt. Chandro. As per the record, Smt Result : Petition allowed 19/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 Chandro had died on 10.3.73. No death certificate was produced or filed, although, a declaration in this regard was filed by Sh Ramphal Singh. The service particulars of said person signed by one Major Senior Record Officer is ExPW2/A while copy of the declaration filed by said Ramphal Singh is ExPW2/B. According to it, marriage of Ramphal with one Nani had taken place on 10.3.74. The name of son of Ramphal is Anil Kr born on 23.1.75 and that of his daughters Suman Kumari and Poonam, the date of birth is 14.7.77 and 29.1.79 respectively.
14. ASI Rajbir Singh is PW 3 who was summoned to produce the documents in respect of complaint lodged by Sh Jungli. In this respect, Sh Umed Singh had placed on record the documents obtained by him in the form of RTI application no. 694/RTI dated 4.11.08 and 695/RTI dated 4.11.08. These documents are in respect of inquiry conducted on the complaint of Sh Jungli alongwith which copy of statement of Sh. Ramphal, Sh Jungli, Sh Prem Singh and report of local police is attached with latter set of documents, statement of one Sh. Ramher Numberdar besides the report of local police is also attached. As PW3, ASI Rajbir Singh saw the said documents which are ExPW3/1 to ExPW3/3 respectively and submitted that same are true copies as per their record. However, the witness could not clarify about the genuineness of these documents as their own record had been destroyed.
Result : Petition allowed 20/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06
15. Likewise, the non applicants had also placed on record certain documents obtained by them from the office of D.C. Sonepat by virtue of RTI application no. 225 dated 18.5.07 in which they sought information regarding action taken on the complaint dated 17.7.06 made by Sh Jungli. ExPW4/1 is a letter written by D.C Sonepat to non applicant Umed Singh to the effect that the widow pension of Smt. Chandro @ Chandrawati, daughter of Sh Chandgi has been stopped from June 2006. ExPW4/2 is copy of letter written by D.C Sonepat to the Divisional office, Kannaur as stated above. PW 4 submitted that the above documents are true copies. It is note worthy to mention here that no attempt was made to prove the complaint of Sh Jungli dated 17.7.06 although its copy is on record.
16. One Sh Vikas Sehrawat from the office of Civil Surgion office, Sonepat as PW 5 produced the record for the year 1971 to 1976 pertaining to death certificate information. He submitted that there is no entry in these records in respect of death of Smt.Chandro @ Chandrawati W/o Sh Ramphal. The record is ExPW5/1 to ExPW5/6.
17. Sh. Karamvir Dahiya, Election Kanoongo, Sonepat (PW6) produced the certified copy of the election record for the year 1984 in respect of village Sirdhana, Sonepat. Same is ExPW6/2. It relates to Sh. Ramphal.
18. Sh Subey Singh, PW 7 is a resident of village Sitawali who was Result : Petition allowed 21/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 shown the document Mark X in his chief examination. However, the witness failed to identify the said document. He however, deposed that the document bears his signature at point A. He deposed nothing about its contents.
19. The next witness Sh Om Prakash PW 8 submitted that the said document Mark X bears his signature at point B. He was ex sarpanch of village Panchayat of village Sitawali. As per the document mark X, the certificate had been issued that Ramphal had been married to Chandro @ Chandrawati, daughter of Chandgi Ram in the year 1968.
20. No other witness was examined by the non applicants.
21. I have heard Sh Roopansh Purohit, ld. Counsel for applicants/ revocators and Sh B.D Kaushik, ld counsel for non applicants. Written arguments have also been placed on record by ld. Counsel for the applicants. Copy was supplied. Ld. Counsels have argued in accordance of the pleadings and have confined to the impact of the documents visavis oral testimony produced on record. It is not necessary to deal with the same in detail here as they shall form part of the discussion on issues.
22. On law, it was urged by ld. Counsel for applicants that the competence of Smt. Chanderwati to execute the sale deeds in favour of the applicants and their deceased father is not to be looked into by this Court as the Probate Court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself.
Result : Petition allowed 22/44
Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06
Reliance has been placed on Kanwarjeet Singh Dhillo v
Hardayal Dhillo 2007 SCC Vol. 11 Page 357. It is further argued that as per the facts of this case, a petition under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act would be maintainable and in this respect, reliance is placed on Krishna Kumar Birla v Rajender Singh Lodha 2008 Vol. IV SCC Page 300.
23. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the non applicants have placed reliance on the aspect of Hindu Marriage Act by producing the judgments viz;
(i) 2003(2) Marriage and Divorce Judicial Reports, Punjab & Haryana High Court 97;
(ii) 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 749 Punjab & Haryana High Court;
(iii) AIR (2007) Delhi 247;
(iv) 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 253 (SC);
(v) (2005) 3 SC 636 and
(vi) 2006 (1) RCR SC (535).
24. Before I advert to any of the issues, it would be relevant to read the provision of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which is as under:
Section 263: Revocation or Annulment for just cause - The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause.
Just cause shall be deemed to exist where:
(a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in Result : Petition allowed 23/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 substance: or
(b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or
(c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or
(d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or
(e) the person to whom the grant was made has willfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of this part, or has exhibited under that Chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect."
25. As would be clear from the reading of the above provision, the explanation appended to it creates a deeming fiction if the case is found to be categorized within explanation (a) to (e). According to ld. Counsel for the applicants, the grant of letters of administration in the instant case requires revocation as it was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion as also by concealing from the Court something material to the case. The grant is further challenged and stated to be requiring revocation Result : Petition allowed 24/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 on the ground that Sh Jungli had lawfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with provisions of Chapter 7 of Part VII of the Act and has exhibited an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect. Illustration (ii) provides that a grant that was made without citing the parties who ought to have been cited is a revocable grant.
26. It is settled law that a Court of Probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last Will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution, the testator had sound disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the purview of the probate Court. Thus, the only issue in a probate proceedings relates to the genuineness and due execution of the Will and the Court itself is under duty to determine it and preserve the original Will in its custody. It is also settled law that a probate Court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself. Reliance is placed on Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v Jasjit Singh & Ors (1993) 2 SCR 454.
27. Reliance is further placed on the decision of Smt. Rukmani Devi & Ors v Narender Lal Gupta AIR 1984 SC 1866 whereby which the Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the order of the Civil Court by holding that a probate granted by a competent probate Court Result : Petition allowed 25/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 was conclusive of the validity of the Will of late Sh Kirpal Singh only until it was revoked and no defence could be attempted to impeach the said Will except under a proceeding for revocating the probate.
28. The arguments of defence that the objections in respect of the LAC compensation are to be decided by the Ld Acquisition Collector and not by this Court are therefore, unfounded. The applicants have rightly placed reliance on the case title Kanwarjeet Singh (Supra).
29. Further, to say that the applicants will not have caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased Sh. Chander Bhan would be incorrect as they claim right over it through Smt. Chanderwati claiming her to be the widow of deceased Sh. Chander Bhan. In this context, the applicants have rightly relied on Krishna Kumar Birla's case (Supra). The said judgment also clarifies that the question of title, existence of the property, construction of Will relating to right, title and interest of any person etc are beyond jurisdiction of a probate Court. The Court clarifies that remedy of a person in respect of latter type of question is to file a separate suit or file application under Section 263 for revocation of probate.
30. Having determined the aspect that the applicants are entitled to file the petition in hand, I shall now take up the second issue for consideration prior to consideration on others as its findings Result : Petition allowed 26/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 shall have bearing on the other issues.
31. Issue no. 2. Whether the deceased was survived by a wife and daughter at the time of his death ?OPA.
The onus of proving this issue was upon the applicants. I may say that once they adduced cogent and reliable evidence in support of the issue, the burden would thereafter shift upon the non applicants who will then have to adduce greater degree of cogent and reliable evidence on the issue in order to reshift the burden to prove on the applicants.
31.1. In the present case, neither of the parties have either called or examined Smt. Chanderwati or for that matter Sh Ramphal. This fact by in itself cannot be taken against either of the parties if otherwise reliable and cogent evidence is found on record. 31.2. Two types of evidence is available on the issue. The first type of evidence is the oral evidence given by RW 8 Sh Daryao Singh as well as RW 9 Sh Jugal Batra. The second type of evidence is documentary.
31.3. So far as the first type of oral evidence is concerned, Sh Daryao Singh asserts this fact on oath in his affidavit ExPA. Likewise, RW 9 never asserted such a fact in his affidavit ExRW9/A but was cross examined on the issue. In addition to it, RW 8 produced the birth certificate of Bimla i.e daugther of Sh. Chander Bhan and Smt. Chandrawati which is ExOW1/2. There is no cross examination offered to RW 8 on the above birth Result : Petition allowed 27/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 certificate. Only a suggestion is given to the effect that the said birth certificate is manipulated by the witness. This in itself will not suffice as the circumstances as to how and in what manner the birth certificate which is a public document could have been manipulated by RW 8 are not explained. Further, RW 8 has produced the copy of the mutation of inheritance ExOW1/3 and ExOW1/4 as pointed out in para 8.3 of this judgment. It would be interesting to see that absolutely no cross examination on the contents of para 4 and para 5 of his affidavit has been offered to RW 8. It is common law that a fact asserted and not cross examined becomes a fact that is undisputed and uncontroverted. Accordingly, in the absence of any challenge to ExOW1/3 and ExOW1/4 shall have to be held that there was indeed mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of Smt. Chandrawati and Bimla on the death of Sh Chandgi and also there was mutation of inheritance in favour of Smt. Chandrawati after the death of Bimla vide document ExOW1/3 and ExOW1/4 respectively.
32. In para 24 of the affidavit of RW 8, he categorically states about the factum of Smt. Chanderwati being his wife and Bimla being his daughter which is also proved by the copy of judgment of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi which are ExOW1/45 to ExOW1/47 respectively which have been otherwise proved by RW4 as ExRW4/OW1/45 to ExRW4/OW1/47 respectively. On this issue, the defence did not offer point specific cross examination Result : Petition allowed 28/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 to RW 8. ExOW1/47 is the application of Smt. Chandrawati dated 26.11.79 which was moved before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi under her own affidavit seeking substitution in place of the deceased petitioner no. 2 Sh Chander Bhan. In the application she states as on 26.11.79 that the petitioner no. 2 namely Sh Chander Bhan was her husband who died at village Narela, Delhi on 5.11.1979 in an accident. She also produced her death certificate. She also stated that he survived by one daughter named Kumari Bimla. She also claimed therein that there is no other heir or legal representative of deceased Sh Chander Bhan except her as the daughter did not succeed to the estate of deceased Sh. Chander Bhan under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act. The judgment is ExOW1/45 wherein para 6, the then Financial Commissioner, Delhi noted that after the on remand of the case to the said Court, petitioner no. 2 Sh Chander Bhan had died and her widow Smt. Chandrawati was impleaded in his place vide order dated 17.12.79. ExOW1/46 is the certified copy of order dated 17.12.79. It is apparent that at one point of time, Sh Jungli as petitioner no. 1 and Sh Chander Bhan as petitioner no. 2 had been litigating in respect of the land comprising in Khasra no. 29/2/2, 29/3/1 and 29/2/1 situated in revenue estate of village Mamurpur, Delhi. Subsequently, after the death of Sh Chander Bhan, Sh Jungli (now deceased) and Smt. Chandrawati together had been litigating w.e.f 17.12.79 till Result : Petition allowed 29/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 28.3.1980. It is in the reply filed by now deceased Sh Jungli that he do not know about the facts of case filed before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi as it was his brother Sh Chander Bhan who had been prosecuting the said case. It is however, not clarified by him in the reply as to who took care of his interest after the death of Sh Chander Bhan till the time of passing of final orders on 28.3.1980. Thus, said stand does not strike to the good conscience of this Court. I may as well point out here that PW 1 Sh. Umed Singh has deposed about this aspect in para 6 of his affidavit ExPW1/A. It is in his cross examination dated 19.5.09 that he had deposed the facts in his affidavit from the knowledge he derived from his father namely Sh Om Prakash who was still alive as on the date of his cross examination. The date of birth of this witness is 10.7.1978 while Sh Chander Bhan had died on 3.11.79. As to how this PW 1 Sh Umed Singh would have personal knowledge of the case can not be appreciated as he would not have the same. On the contrary, Sh Om Prakash would definitely have personal knowledge of atleast some of the facts of the case prior to the death of Sh Chander Bhan. However, he was not examined even when the evidence of non applicants started.
33. So far as RW 9 is concerned, he ran a petrol pump at Sindhu Border, Delhi and knew Sh Chandgi also as he was residing behind his petrol pump in his farms. According to this witness, whole of the family used to come to the fields and he used to see Result : Petition allowed 30/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 them from his petrol pump since his childhood. He makes positive assertion in the cross examination to the effect that, "His wife also used to visit the fields in eighty's. I do not remember who tole me that the lady present in the fields was his wife. He used to take diesel from me and he only told me that the lady present there was his birevarni. I do not know whether he was married or not. It is incorrect that whatever I am deposing is false. It is incorrect that he was not having any wife." As would be evident, defence counsel gave a general suggestion to RW 9 that whatever he was deposing was false. The positive assertion of the witness to the effect that wife of Sh Chandgi also used to visit the fields in eighty's was not controverted specifically. This at least supports RW 8 and the case of the applicants that Sh Chandgi was at least not a bachelor.
34. I shall now turn to the documentary evidence produced by the witnesses. I have already pointed out that the mutation entries ExOW1/3 and ExOW1/4 are depicting Smt. Chandrawati as wife of Chandgi @ Chander Bhan. They are also depicting Bimla as daughter of Sh Chandgi @ Chander Bhan and Smt. Chandrawati. The fact that she was born out of the wedlock of Sh Chander Bhan and Smt. Chandrawati is proved from the birth certificate ExOW1/2. The fact that Sh Jungli and Smt. Chandrawati litigated before the Court of Financial Commissioner, Delhi in 1980 is proved from ExOW1/45. Sh Navin Dutt, RW 1 proved that in the Result : Petition allowed 31/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 voter list of the year 1980 of Nai Basti Mamurpur, Narela, Delhi, the name of Chandro, wife of Sh Chandre, aged 45 years appears at serial no. 118 in ExRW1/OW1/48. The name of Chandre S/o Sh Maya Ram also appears at serial no. 117. In the same voter list the name of Sh Jungli Ram S/o Sh Maya Ram also appears at serial no. 107. The document being a public document could not be disputed by the cross examining counsel. Further, RW 3 proves that as per the birth and death record of the year 1978 a female child named Bimla was born from Chander Bhan and Chanderpati on 5.6.1978. The entry no. 153 dated 13.6.1978 is proved by the witness who also proved the birth certificate ExRW3/OW1/2. This witness also clarifies that the age of mother at the time of birth of Bimla was 28 years and that previously she had given birth to six living children but at the time of birth of this child, she had only one living child.
35. The above evidence is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondents who produced PW 1 Sh Umed Singh to controvert the above evidence. As PW 1 Sh Umed Singh deposed that Smt Chandrawati is the legally wedded wife of Sh Ramphal S/o Sh Ram Singh, R/o village Sitawali, Distrcit Sonepat (Haryana) in the year 1968. No supporting evidence is produced that the said marriage took place in the year 1968 or that the witness was speaking of same Chandrawati, who according to the applicants, was married to Sh Chander Bhan. It is their case Result : Petition allowed 32/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 that Sh Chander Bhan died bachelor and was never married. As stated by me earlier, the PW 1 was born only on 10.7.1978. His entire cross examination reveals that either he would not know the material fact or would not be remembering the same. This does not requires to be demonstrated as it is clear from even a glance on the entire cross examination which is riddled with the phrases like "I do not know"; "I do not remember" and "I have no knowledge". Nevertheless, on the second page of his cross examination dated 19.5.09, the witness states that he know Ramphal's wife is Chandro @ Chandrawati D/o Chandgi Ram. He was suggested that name of wife of said Ramphal was Nani and that Poonam, Sonam, Suman and Anil were his children. He obviously denied the said suggestion. However, what comes out is that according to PW 1, Ramphal was married to one Chandro @ Chandrawati, daughter of Chandgi Ram. According to PW 2 Hawaldar Bhawani Singh, Ramphal had nominated his wife namely Smt. Chandro and according to Declaration ExPW2/B, she died on 10.3.73. Admittedly, parentage of Smt Chandro was not shown in service particulars ExPW2/A. Further, admittedly the names of chilidren of Smt Chandro were not mentioned in this record. The above facts are quite intriguing as if Smt. Chandro was indeed married to Ramphal in the year 1968 and died in the year 1973, then she could not have had six children within a span of 5 years. The record further reveals that Ramphal Result : Petition allowed 33/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 had married with one Ms. Nani whose name was inserted in the records on 7.7.76 while their marriage took place on 10.3.1974. Careful look at ExPW2/A reveals that Chandro is stated to be the first wife of Ramphal Singh. The date of marriage is not provided. Further the particulars of said Chandro are not provided but according to PW 1, the said Chandro is called Chandro @ Chandrawati, daughter of Chandgi Ram. As per the case of the applicants, Chandro @ Chandrawati was not daughter of Chandgi Ram but his wife. These circumstances have not been explained by the non applicants. Further, documents ExPW3/1, ExPW3/2 and ExPW3/3 have not been proved in accordance with law. Even otherwise, as per PW 3, he could not clarify regarding genuineness of these documents as their record had been destroyed. The witness had no personal knowledge about these documents. It was imperative upon the non applicants to have examined Ramher Numberdar, Ramphal, S/o Ram Singh, Prem Singh, Dalbir Singh S/o Amar Singh, Ram Chander, S/o Rati Ram, Hari Singh, S/o Shobha Ram, Daya Ram S/o Aslu and Angrej, S/o Angrej Singh whose names are mentioned in documents ExPW3/1 to ExPW3/2. Merely because copies of these documents have been derived by way of application under the RTI Act 2005, they can not be deemed proved unless at least makers of these documents are produced before this Court. If the non applicants are intending to say that Ms. Chanderwati Result : Petition allowed 34/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 was earlier married to Ramphal and left him due to matrimonial dispute whereafter she married with Chander Bhan @ Chandrey, then, cogent proof to that effect should have been adduced. As said earlier, Ramher Numberdar who is said to be brother of Chandgi could have been examined. Smt. Chanderwati herself could have been examined. Smt. Nani could have been examined. Sh Ramphal could have been examined. Even otherwise, it would not be out of place to mention that the evidence to the effect that Smt. Chandro, wife of Sh Ramphal died on 10.3.1973 i.e ExPW2/A has been produced by the non applicants only and not by the applicants. It demolishes their case that Smt. Chandrawati was not alive at the time of sale in question and that she was not the wife of Chander Bhan. This is so the documents ExPW2/A would reveal that the first wife of Sh Ramphal had died on 10.3.73.
36. In this context, the non applicants have tried to produce ExPW6/A through Sh Karamvir Dahiya, Election Kanoongo. It is not clear as to why the said witness was examined and to what avail. It is so as ExPW6/1 is a document dated 8.6.06 which replicates the electoral roll of the year 1984 in respect of polling booth no. 33 Sirdhana, District Sonepat. It shows the name of one Chandrapati at serial no. 299 who is related to one Chandgi as per serial no. 299 col. no. 4. As to how she is related to the said Chandgi is not clarified in the document. Thus the same can be Result : Petition allowed 35/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 either daughter or wife of Chandgi which is not the case of non applicants.
37. Further, the non applicants also attempted to produce on record the RTI information obtained vide RTI application 2255/CEB dated 1.5.07, ExPW4/1 and ExPW4/2. This document also refers Chandrawati, daughter of Chandgi. The combined effect of these documents is that the person referred to as Chandro @ Chandrawati, daughter of Chandgi can not be the same person as is referred to by the non applicants and if it is so then she could not have been the daughter of late Chandgi. On the contrary, the copy of the voter I. Card filed ExPW6/2 i.e own witness of the non applicants reveals that Chandro is the wife of Chandgi and was aged 45 years as on 1.7.94. This voter I. Card was issued to her on 12.10.94. On the contrary, same document also shows the copy of election I Card of Ramphal which was issued to him on 15.10.94 i.e three days after the voter I. Card issued to said Chandro. This voter I card shows that Chandro was wife of Chandgi. In any case, if the case of non applicants is to be believed, the said Chandro can not be alive as she died on 10.3.73. This brings me to the last document that the non applicants produced in this context. As stated earlier, the non applicants heavily relied on document Mark X. Its introduction in evidence was objected to by the counsel for applicants on mode of its proof. It is a photocopy of which original has not Result : Petition allowed 36/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 been produced. Its contents reveals that it is a certificate issued by certain village officials of village Sitawali Distt. Sonepat,Haryana to the effect that Sh Ramphal married with Smt. Chandro @ Chandrawati, D/o Chandgi Ram in the year 1968 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. For the first thing to be noted in the document is that it refers Chandro @ Chandrawati as daughter of Chandgi Ram. Further, it is sought to be proved through PW 7 and PW 8. As stated earlier, PW 7 identified his signature on the document at point A. However, the witness could not say nothing about the contents of the document and he could not identify the same because of low eye sight. So far as PW 8 is concerned, he identified his signature at point B on mark X. However, in his cross examination, he submits that the contents of the certificate were not read to him and that he had only checked the name of Ramphal. He also submits that he was not read over the contents of Mark X by the Numberdar in Hindi or in English. He finally stated that he was only told that the certificate is required for some purposes in the matrimonial house of wife of Sh Ramphal. The witness also submitted that he could not answer as to whether name of wife of Ramphal is Ms. Nani or not as he is not aware as to whom Ramphal married. Accordingly, the genuineness of the contents of document Mark X remains in doubt and for that reason, the said document can not be relied upon.
Result : Petition allowed 37/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06
38. None of the case law as cited by the petitioners in respect of above aspect is either applicable to the present case either on the facts or on law.
39. Accordingly, the non applicants have not produced graver quality of the evidence adduced by the applicants and therefore, have been unable to shift the burden of proof back on to the applicants. In the result, the issue is decided in favour of the applicants and against the non applicants.
40. Issue no. 1. Whether the letters of administration dated 26.4.2000 was obtained by the non applicant/ respondent by concealment of facts and playing fraud ? OPA The onus of proving this issue was again on the applicants. It is the case of the applicants that the letters of administration was obtained by Sh Jungli (now deceased) by playing fraud on the Court on the premise that his brother Sh Chander Bhan died on 3.11.79 and at the time of his death, he was survived by him and his sister Kalawati as his sole LRs which fact is a wrong statement as he was married and had also an issue. It is also the case of the applicants that the deceased Chandgi Ram owned the land as described in para 2 of this judgment above at the time of his death which is factually wrong and Sh Chander Bhan had no interest whatsoever left in the said estate. As on his death, the said interest devolved to his wife Smt. Chanderwati and daughter Result : Petition allowed 38/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 Bimla. It is also the case of the applicants that the petition for grant of letters of administration filed after 22 years of the death of Sh Chander Bhan relying on old Khatoni relating to the year 197374 is itself indicative of the fact that the petition was filed by concealing from the Court the material facts which would have been otherwise proved if the Khatoni for the year 197778, 1984 and 2001 were produced. It is also the case of the applicants that Sh Jungli (now deceased) knew about the sale as he himself was a joint khatedar of the land comprising in Khasra no. 48, a part of which he admittedly sold in the year 1985 but deliberately concealed from the Court granting the probate. It is finally the case of the applicants that the schedule of property filed by the now deceased Sh Jungli was incorrect. By virtue of the findings on issue no. 2, it will not be at all improper to say that Smt. Chanderwati as well as Bimla were proper and necessary parties to the probate petition. They were not at all impleaded. This in itself is a ground of concealment of facts. Even if the deceased Sh Jungli is assumed to be unaware of marital status of his brother deceased Sh Chander Bhan, which is highly improbable in view of ExRW4/OW1/45 to ExRW4/OW1/47, there are other grounds which raises a strong finger towards the concealment aspect. Perusal of file of probate petition reveals that the now deceased Sh Jungli had relied on Khatoni for the year 197374 in respect of petition filed by him in the year 2001. The applicants have placed Result : Petition allowed 39/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 on record khasra girdawaries ExOW1/13 to ExOW1/27 of which ExOW1/20 to ExOW1/27 were proved by RW 7. He produced the entire upto date record of khasra girdawaries upto the year 199495. Infact, RW 6 Sh Satya Prakash, Patwari also proved the khasra girdawaries as ExOW1/17. The relevant evidence in this regard is incorporated in para 8.7 of this judgment. The factum of sale is proved by virtue of certified copy of sale deeds ExOW1/5 to ExOW1/8 respectively. The mutation of sale in favour of the applicants is proved by the certified copy ExOW1/9 which is further proved by RW 6 Sh Satya Prakash, Patwari. The part of the land was further sold to RW 9 Sh Jugal Batra which is fact is proved by him. That the sold land was acquired vide award ExOW1/10 is also proven fact. ExOW1/11 and ExOW1/12 duly proved that after the sale, the applicants were left with an area of 14 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land out of Rect. 48. These are copies of khatoni for the year 198384 and 200001. That the mutation in respect of share of Sh Inder Singh was made in favour of his remaining brothers and that the name of purchasers were recorded is proved by ExOW1/13 to ExOW1/27 as stated earlier.
41. That RW 8 got a farm house sanctioned in his land is proved by ExOW1/28. The original assessment letter is ExOW1/29 further proves that the said farm house was assessed to house tax. Perusal of electricity bills ExOW1/33 to ExOW1/38 also proves that the electricity connection was installed in land comprising in Result : Petition allowed 40/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 Khasra no. 48/2 in the name of RW 8. This fact is further proved by RW 11 Sh Dalip Singh. He has produced record of the payments received ExRW11/A. The latest electricity bill so produced is of March 2004. ExOW1/39 duly proves that the remaining land of 14 Bighas and 8 Biswas was acquired vide it. This document is produced by RW 8. It is also proven that notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued and received by the applicants. This fact is proved by RW 8 and RW 10 who proved ExOW1/40 to ExOW1/43. That the applicants produced the non encumbrance certificate ExOW1/44 is also a proven fact. RW 9 has supported RW 8 in respect of the factum of sale of part of land to him and his brothers.
42.In this respect, I have already pointed out that PW 1 is not aware of the material facts of this case. He submits in his cross examination that mutation in respect of the land was got done by the objector in connivance /in collusion with revenue authority. However, no evidence in this respect was produced. He did not know if compensation was awarded to Vikram Impex Private Ltd. He is not aware whether his father or Sh Jungli Ram filed any objections. However, he has admitted that Sh Jungli had sold certain portion of land to Sh Dina Nath in the year 1986. It is in his cross examination that the contents of his affidavit are based on the information given to him by his father. I have already pointed out that Sh Om Prakash was alive on that date. As to why Result : Petition allowed 41/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 his evidence was not produced has not been clarified.
43. So far as the RW 8 is concerned, he has not been cross examined on the contents of para 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 as well as 17 of his affidavit ExPA. Para 10 is in respect of sanction of mutation of inheritance in favour of RW 8 and his brother consequent to death of Sh Inder Singh. Para 11 is in respect of recording of names of purchasers in khasra girdawaries ExOW1/13 to ExOW1/27. Para 14 of the affidavit is in respect of the factum of RW 8 getting an electricity connection in the farm house in his name. Para 15 is in respect of acquisition of land measuring 14 Bighas and 8 Biswas vide award No. 28/20032004 ExOW1/39. Para 16 is in respect of issuance of notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Para 17 is in respect of the requirement of non encumbrance certificate. In the cross examination offered to RW 8, a very peculiar kind of suggestion is noted which is as under:
"It is incorrect that Chandgi was not the owner of the land referred by me in my affidavit and he was the bhumidar."
44.The suggestion becomes peculiar in view of the fact that in the probate petition, Sh Jungli Ram referred Sh Chandgi to be the absolute owner of the land in question. The voluntary statement of RW 8 to the effect that Sh Chandgi was owner of Rect. 48 and bhumidar of 52 has not been suggested to be incorrect. As stated earlier, PW 1 admitted that Sh Jungli had sold part of land in the Result : Petition allowed 42/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 year 1986 to Sh Dina Nath. This fact gives support to the case of the applicants that the deceased Sh Jungli was joint khatedar of the above land and therefore, could not have been unaware of the factum of sale of the said land by Smt. Chanderwati to the applicants. It being so, the inventory furnished at the time of issuance of letters of administration was incorrect. This tentamounts to giving an incorrect submission before the Court granting probate. In the result, the applicants have successfully discharged the onus of proving this issue which lay upon them. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the applicants and against the non applicants.
45. Issue no. 3. Whether the letters of administration is liable to be revoked ? OPA.
In view of the findings on issue no. 1 & 2, it is found that the grant of letters of administration requires revocation on due proof of 'just causes' i.e on the basis of concealment of facts material to the case; on exhibition of incorrect inventory & non joinder of necessary parties. The letters of administration granted on 26.4.02 are required to be revoked. The issue is decided in favour of the applicants and against the non applicants.
46.Relief.
As pointed out by me in para 7 of this judgment, the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C filed by the applicants also requires to be disposed of. As a matter of fact, none of the arguing counsels Result : Petition allowed 43/44 Jungli v State MPC No. 21/06 ever touched upon the application specifically during the arguments. Any point specific evidence with respect to commission of offences as alleged has not been adduced by the applicants in their evidence. Moreover, Smt Kalawati was never put to notice of the application and Sh Jungli has now died. In the result, the application is dismissed. Further, as a result of findings on issue no. 1, 2 & 3, the application in hand is allowed and consequently, the letters of administration ordered by way of judgment dated 26.4.02 passed in P.C No. 144/01 titled as Jungli v State & Anr and granted by virtue of administration cum surety bond dated 29.9.03 are hereby revoked. Ordered accordingly.
47. In result, the petition stands allowed.
48. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court. (Manish Yaduvanshi) Dated: 28.08.2014. ADJ06(Central)Delhi Result : Petition allowed 44/44