Delhi District Court
Sh Shivji Ram vs Smt. Saraswati Anrs on 9 June, 2025
Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh
PC NO. 5827/2016
FILING No. 16227/2014
CNR No. DLST01-000073-2014
In the matter of:-
1. Sh. NARENDER SINGH
S/o Lt. Sh. Shivji Ram
R/O 269, Shahpur Jat,
New Delhi-110049.
(+91-9540019020)
2. Sh. GYANESHWER
S/o Lt.Sh. Shivji Ram
R/o 269, Shahpur Jat,
New Delhi-110049
(+91-9560148592)
(LRs of Deceased Petitioner) ...Petitioners
VERSUS
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
PC No. 5827/2016 18:19:09 +0530
Page 1 of 23
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
1. Smt. SARASWATI
W/o Sh. Jas Ram
R/o B-2/101 Safdurjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029
(+91-9810336777)
2. State ....Respondents
Date of Institution : 20.11.2012 (02.05.2014)
Date of reserving the judgment : 02.05.2025
Date of pronouncement : 09.06.2025
Decision : Dismissed
REVOCATION PETITION UNDER SECTION 263 OF
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the application filed by Sh. Shivji Ram under Section 263 for revocation of letters of administration issued by the then Ld. District Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 16.05.1985.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts of the case are that through the present petition, the revocation of probate granted in PC no. 191/84 in favour of respondent no. 1 herein (Smt. Saraswati) is sought. It is claimed that petitioner Shivji Ram is grandson Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 PC No. 5827/2016 18:19:15 +0530 Page 2 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
(Dhevta) of the testatrix (Smt. Jallo Devi).
3. It is claimed that petitioner was residing with his maternal grandmother i.e. testatrix since 1954 and Late Smt. Jallo Devi executed a registered Will dated 31.05.1968 in his favour while bequeathing all her properties. The testatrix expired on 21.11.1983 while leaving behind her daughter Smt. Rupo Devi.
4. It is claimed that since his maternal grandmother had already executed a registered Will in his favour therefore, the petitioner is the only LR of testatrix. It is further claimed that the testatrix was allotted a plot measuring 209 sq. mtrs. being Plot no. 34, Sector 23B, Pocket-7, Dwarka, New Delhi in lieu of her land acquired in South Delhi vide recommendation letter dated 16.10.1982, which was confirmed vide letter dated 20.11.1982.
5. It is further averred that since the allotment of this plot the DDA had not informed the petitioner regarding the further development in this regard. It is contended that the DDA through publication in the newspaper 'Hindustan Times' dated 26.04.2012 invited objections from general public at large regarding the said plot as respondent no. 1/ Smt. Saraswati Devi sought substitution of her name on the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 PC No. 5827/2016 18:19:25 +0530 Page 3 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
basis of Will and letters of administration granted by the Court. In pursuance of this notice, the petitioner moved his objections to DDA within the stipulated period of 7 days. It is further averred by the petitioner that seeing the DDA was not deciding the objections of the petitioner, petitioner filed WP(C) no. 3201/12 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 21.05.2012 while disposing off the case file directed DDA to dispose off the objections filed by the petitioner within eight weeks and to communicate the fate of the same to the petitioner within a week thereafter. It is further contended that the objections as filed before DDA were decided on 01.10.2012 and same was communicated to the petitioner alongwith copy of petition granted in favour of respondent no. 1 by registered post.
6. It is further alleged that at that point of time, the petitioner first time came to know that respondent no. 1 had obtained letters of administration in PC case no. 191/84 by misleading the court on the basis of a forged and fabricated Will. Through the present revocation petition the petitioner also denied his position as an attesting witness of the alleged Will and it was contended that this signatures on the Will as Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:19:42 +0530 PC No. 5827/2016 Page 4 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
attesting witness, his signatures at attesting witnesses' verification clause dated 18.07.1984 with the probate petition as filed by respondent no. 1 herein are forged and fabricated. It is also alleged that he never stood as a witness before the court in PC no. 191/84 and never gave any statement dated 24.04.1985. It is further alleged that the entire proceedings were manipulated by respondent no. 1. It is further contended that signatures of the petitioner on the alleged statement dated 24.04.1985 before the court are forged and fabricated. On these grounds it is prayed that probate dated 16.05.1985 passed in PC no. 191/84 titled Smt. Saraswati vs. State and letters of administration granted on 31.10.1985 may be revoked.
REPLY
7. Reply to the revocation petition was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1, whereby all the allegations made in revocation petition were categorically denied and it was contended that only objective in filing the present petition was to illegally harass and blackmail the respondent no. 1 when she was on the verge of being given possession of said plot after having fought for 27 years battle with DDA. REJOINDER:
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
18:19:52 +0530
PC No. 5827/2016
Page 5 of 23
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
8. Rejoinder on behalf of petitioner to the reply filed by the respondent no. 1 was filed, wherein he denied the allegation of respondent no. 1 and reiterated the contents of the petition.
ISSUES:
9. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 01.12.2014:-
1. Whether the letters of administration granted by judgment dt. 16.05.1985 (in probate case no.191/1984) has been obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated Will dt. 12.01.1983, if so how? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner Shivji Ram never appended his verification to the said petition of probate case nor he signed it, his signatures have been forged and fabricated, if so, how? OPP
3. Whether the material facts were concealed by the said Smt. Saraswati (respondent no.1 herein) the petitioner in probate case no.191/1984 from the court in her petition u/s 276 of Indian Succession Act, if so, what material fact and how? OPP
4. Whether there exists the facts as narrated in paragraph 12 and 14 of the petition? OPP
5. Whether the petition is false and abuse of process of law? OPR-1
6. Whether the petition is without any Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 PC No. 5827/2016 18:20:03 +0530 Page 6 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
substance and cause of action, if so its consequences?OPR-1
7. Whether the petitioner is entitled for revocation for letters of administration granted in PC no.191/1984, as prayed by the petitioner in his petition u/s 263 of Indian Succession Act? OPP
8. Relief.
EVIDENCE ADDUCED:
10. Petitioner in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1.
11. PW1 i.e. petitioner tendered his affidavit of evidence as A-1 and relied upon the following documents:-
i. Certified copy of Will (in Urdu) dated 31.05.1968 with attested translated copy as Ex. PW-1/A; ii. Photocopy of letter dated 25.11.1982 as Ex. PW-1/B (OSR);
iii. Photocopy of letter dated 16.10.1982 as Ex. PW-1/C (OSR);
iv. Photocopy of Public Notice in the newspaper Hindustan Times dated 26.04.2012 as Ex. PW-1/D (OSR);
v. Photocopy of letter dated 30.04.2012 as Mark AA/ PW-1;
vi. Photocopy of order dated 25.05.2012 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as Mark BB/PW-1; vii. Photocopy of communication letter dated 01.10.2012 as Ex. PW-1/G (OSR);
viii. Certified copy of statement of Shivji Ram dated Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 PC No. 5827/2016 18:20:08 +0530 Page 7 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
24.04.1985 as Mark A/ PW-1; and ix. Photocopy of Handwriting Expert report dated 30.10.2012 as Mark X/PW 1.
12. PW-1 was cross examined at length on 14.10.2017 by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1.
Respondent's evidence: -
13. On 17.10.2019, the matter was listed for final arguments on submissions of Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1, whereby he submitted that upon instructions from his client, he did not wish to lead any evidence and to examine any witness in RE.
14. An application u/o XXII rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for bringing LRs of petitioner alongwith documents and vakalatnama was allowed on 01.05.2025. That day, amended memo of parties on behalf of LRs of petitioner (since deceased) was taken on record.
15. I have heard the arguments of Ld. counsels for both the parties and perused the record carefully. Written submissions on behalf of respondent no. 1 were filed on 29.04.2025.
16. Time now to deal with the issues.
Issue No.1, 2, 3 & 4:
Digitally signed byYADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:20:14 +0530 PC No. 5827/2016 Page 8 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
"1. Whether the letters of administration granted by judgment dt. 16.05.1985 (in probate case no.191/1984) has been obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated Will dt. 12.01.1983, if so how? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner Shivji Ram never appended his verification to the said petition of probate case nor he signed it, his signatures have been forged and fabricated, if so, how? OPP
3. Whether the material facts were concealed by the said Smt. Saraswati (respondent no.1 herein) the petitioner in probate case no.191/1984 from the court in her petition u/s 276 of Indian Succession Act, if so, what material fact and how? OPP
4. Whether there exists the facts as narrated in paragraph 12 and 14 of the petition? OPP
17. Issue no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are taken together as these are interconnected. The onus to prove issues no. 1, 2, 3 & 4 was on the petitioner. In order to prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW1. Apart from himself, no other witness was examined on behalf of petitioner. The petitioner tendered his evidence through his affidavit A-1 on 13.04.2015. on 27.08.2016, he tendered certified copy of Will dated 31.05.1968 with attested translated copy allegedly executed by Late Smt. Jallo Devi in his favour. Same was Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH PC No. 5827/2016 SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:20:19 +0530 Page 9 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. Photocopy of letter dated 25.11.1982 of DDA in respect of allotment of alternative plot to Smt. Jallo Devi was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B (OSR). Photocopy of another letter dated 16.10.1982 of DDA in respect of allotment of alternative plot to Smt. Jallo Devi was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/C (OSR). The photocopy of Public Notice in the newspaper Hindustan Times dated 26.04.2012 regarding decision of DDA to invite objections through publication within 7 days was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D (OSR). Photocopy of communication letter dated 01.10.2012 by DDA regarding decision on the objections filed by the present petitioner was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/G. Photocopy of letter dated 30.04.2012 in nature of objections in response of abovesaid publication in the newspaper dated 26.04.2012 issued by DDA sent by petitioner to the DDA was marked as Mark AA/ PW-1. Photocopy of order dated 25.05.2012 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) no. 3201/12, whereby DDA was directed to decide the objections within a period of eight weeks was marked as Mark BB/PW-1. The petitioner also relied upon certified copy of his alleged statement dated 24.04.1985 in PC no. 191/84 as PW-1 and it was marked as Mark A/ PW-1. He also filed photocopy of Handwriting Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 PC No. 5827/2016 18:20:24 +0530 Page 10 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
Expert report dated 30.10.2012 and it was marked as Mark X/PW 1.
18. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the Will dated 31.05.1968 Ex. PW-1/A nor the Handwriting Expert report dated 30.10.2012 were proved by the petitioner through acceptable evidences. Due to the reasons best known to the petitioner he did not examine the Handwriting Expert to prove report dated 30.10.2012. The validity and legality of the Will dated 31.05.1968 was also not proved by examining the attesting witnesses.
19. The main contention taken by petitioner in the present revocation petition through para no. 12 & 14 of the petition, are that he did not attest the Will dated 12.01.1983 as an attesting witness and he never verified the petition in PC no. 191/84 and he never appeared before the court in the abovesaid probate case and never gave his statement dated 24.04.1984 Mark A/PW-1 to the court. It was argued on behalf of petitioner that signatures of the petitioner affixed on the Will dated 12.01.1983, at verification clause of attesting witness in the petition in PC no. 191/84 and on the statement dated 24.04.1985 before the court are forged. However, in support of his contentions except bald allegation no cogent Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 PC No. 5827/2016 18:20:29 +0530 Page 11 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
evidence was led. Photocopy of Handwriting Expert report dated 30.10.2012 Mark X/PW-1 was filed by the petitioner during his evidence as PW-1 in this case, however, the report also remained unproved due to lack of acceptable evidence as neither original report was produced nor the Handwriting Expert was examined as witness.
20. It was also argued on behalf of petitioner that when a registered Will dated 31.05.1968 Ex. PW-1/A was executed by testatrix in his favour then there arose no occasion to execute a fresh subsequent registered Will in favour of respondent no. 1 herein, who is also a stranger to the testatrix. However, the legality and validity of the Will dated 31.05.1968 was also not proved by leading proper evidence and by examining attesting witnesses of the alleged Will and accordingly the Will Ex. PW-1/A also cannot be relied upon in favour of petitioner.
21. During his cross-examination dated 14.10.2017, the petitioner answered that he was aware of letters Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C (as issued by DDA in the year 1982 to the testatrix) as the same were shown to him by his grandmother (testatrix Late Smt. Jallo Devi) in the year 1982 itself. He further answered that he informed his mother and his siblings Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
PC No. 5827/2016 2025.06.09
18:20:34 +0530
Page 12 of 23
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
about Ex. PW-1/A i.e. the alleged Will of Late Smt. Jallo Devi. He also answered that he did not inform DDA about Will Ex. PW-1/A either before or after the death of Smt. Jallo Devi. He further answered that he never informed that he was the only beneficiary of Smt. Jallo Devi's estate under Will Ex. PW-1/A. He further answered that it was correct that the Will Ex PW-1/A had never been acted upon by him and submitted to any government department after the death of Smt. Jallo Devi. He also answered that it was correct that he had never written any letter to DDA and had also never communicated with DDA regarding allotment of alternate plot in lieu of land acquired by the Delhi Administration/ DDA. He further answered that he did not see the DDA record before filing objections in response to public notice dated 26.04.2012 and neither he nor his advocates inspected the records of DDA before filing Writ Petition (Civil) no.3201/2012 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He also answered that he never communicated with DDA after receipt of letters Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C regarding the policy of allotment of alternative plot in lieu of land acquired by Delhi Administration/ DDA. However, he voluntarily answered that he had visited DDA office several times. But he further Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 PC No. 5827/2016 18:20:39 +0530 Page 13 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
answered that he did not remember the name of the department which he used to visit while going to the office of DDA and he did not remember the name and designation of any officer that he met on his visits to DDA. He also answered that he did not remember as to when did he visit DDA last time. These answers pertaining to his alleged visit to DDA office several times and still not remembering any details of the visit make the veracity of his such visits to DDA office highly doubtful, and these answers together with the abovesaid answers regarding no communication with DDA somewhere indicates the possibility of petitioner's knowledge regarding the proceedings in PC no. 191/84 even much before the alleged date of knowledge in the year 2012 about letters of administration in favour of Smt. Saraswati Devi only through newspaper publication on 26.04.2012 because it is highly unbelievable when the petitioner was in possession and in knowledge of the abovesaid documents Ex. PW-1/A, Ex. PW-1/B, Ex. PW-1/C at the relevant point of time, then also he never applied to DDA for allotment of alternate plot to him on the basis of Will Ex. PW-1/A and DDA letters for allotment to Late Smt. Jhallo Devi Ex. PW-
1/B and Ex. PW-1/C. Despite his specific knowledge Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 PC No. 5827/2016 18:20:44 +0530 Page 14 of 23
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
regarding allotment of alternative plot in favour of Late Smt. Jallo Devi and despite the fact that he was allegedly the sole legal heir of entire estate of Late Smt. Jallo Devi through alleged Will dated 31.05.1968 Ex. PW-1/A his unexplained abovesaid inaction goes to the roots of the case. This non action on behalf of petitioner also creates serious doubts on bona fides of his filing objections in the year 2012 after DDA invited objections through public notice. It appears to be highly unusual that a person, who was aware about his entitlement for a property, kept silent for around 30 years while not making even a single attempt to communicate with the concerned authority for allotment of plot in his favour and suddenly after allegedly reading a public notice files a case against a person who was on the verge of being given possession of said property after her continuous efforts for 27 years.
These unexplained doubts, goes to the roots of the present petition. Except the bald allegations of fraud and forgery no evidence was led on behalf of petitioner to prove these allegations.
22. Shivji Ram also answered during his cross- examination that it was correct that his relations with his all Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 PC No. 5827/2016 18:20:49 +0530 Page 15 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
siblings were always cordial and his mother and all his siblings used to visit and stay at his grandmother's house at Shahpur Jat whenever they were visiting Delhi during her life time. He also answered that all his siblings visited him and vice versa. He also admitted that his brother Sh. Jai Singh had also filed a revocation petition against the same letters of administration dated 16.05.1985 granted in favour of respondent no. 1/ Smt. Saraswati. However, he further answered that he had not read the revocation petition preferred by Sh. Jai Singh and there was no discussion between them before filing of their respective revocation petitions against Letters of Administration dated 16.05.1985 in favour of Smt. Saraswati. Judicial notice of PC no. 6001/2016 case Jai Singh vs. State may be taken, where his abovesaid brother Jai Singh filed a separate revocation petition for revocation of the same letters of administration dated 16.05.1985 against Smt. Saraswati. In this case Sh. Jai Singh challenged revocation on the ground that the present applicant Sh. Shivji Ram in connivance with respondent Smt. Saraswati had forged and fabricated the Will dated 12.01.1983 on which the abovesaid letters of administration dated 16.05.1985 was issued to usurp the property of his Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:20:55 +0530 PC No. 5827/2016 Page 16 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
deceased grandmother Smt. Jhallo Devi. However, the present revocation petition has been filed by Sh. Shivji Ram on complete different facts, where he is claiming the forgery of his signatures on the Will dated 12.01.1983 and on verification clause as attesting witness with the petition in probate case no. 191/84 and his impersonation during the proceedings in probate petition no.191/84 before the court. However, both these cases have their own merits, however, still considering that the relations between both the brothers were cordial and they used to visit each other alongwith their respective families, it appears to be highly improbable that they did not discuss regarding issuance of letters of administration and for filing the revocation petition with each other specially in the circumstances where both of them are claiming that they came to know about issuance of letters of administration only through alleged publication in the newspaper on 26.04.2012. In these circumstances, suspicious circumstance arises on the allegations of the applicant specially when he did not lead any cogent evidence to prove his allegations. The stands as taken by both these brothers in their respective revocation petition cannot sustain together. At any cost atleast one story is false. It cannot be a case Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH PC No. 5827/2016 SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:21:00 +0530 Page 17 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
where the present applicant can be conspirator alongwith respondent Smt. Saraswati for grant of letters of administration in her favour and simultaneously his signatures were forged and he was impersonated before the court. It is again clarified that both cases have their own independent merits, however, these facts and circumstances are helpful to understand the possibility of suspicious circumstances, which arise when on the one hand, the applicant claims that he has cordial relations with his brother Shivji Ram and on the other hand they are unaware about their respective stands in the revocation petition and when the applicant also answered that there was no discussion between them before they filed their respective revocation petitions, which appears to be highly improbable in the given circumstances.
23. Moreover, the present petition is hopelessly time barred as present petition for revocation of letters of administration granted on 31.05.1985 was filed on 20.11.2012 i.e. after around 27 years of grant of letters of administration. Merely a bald statement was made on behalf of applicant/ revocation petitioner that he came to know about the probate/ letters of administration in favour of Smt. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:21:05 +0530 PC No. 5827/2016 Page 18 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
Saraswati in the year 2012 through publication in daily newspaper Navbharat Times dated 26.04.2012. However, it was not explained that why he did not claim for property of Smt. Jhallo Devi as left out after her death on 21.11.1983. It also remained unexplained that why he or his mother had not applied for allotment of any such alternative plot in lieu of land owned by Smt. Jhallo Devi, which was acquired by government. It is admitted position of the present petitioner that he had never written any letter to DDA and had also not communicated with DDA regarding allotment of alternate plot in lieu of land acquired by Delhi administration/ DDA despite the fact that he was aware of letters Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C as the same were shown to him by his grandmother in the year 1982 itself. However, due to the reasons best known to the applicant either of the LRs of Late Smt. Jhallo Devi never communicated with DDA regarding alternate plot despite having knowledge.
24. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe, (2020) 17 Supreme Court Cases 284 has held that:
"4. Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat, the appellant (hereafter "Ramesh") claiming to be a relative of Antoinette's husband, took out a notice of motion (No. 912 of 1997) in Petition No. 915/ 1982 (i.e. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
PC No. 5827/2016 2025.06.09
18:21:09 +0530
Page 19 of 23
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
the original administration proceeding). That application (notice of motion) was allowed to be withdrawn, with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings. Ramesh claimed that neither he nor his father, nor any other family member had notice of the administration petition. It was alleged that only when the respondent LOA holder applied for mutation of name of Rural Gospel and Medical Mission of India, on the basis of the letters issued by the court, he come to know about it after making inquiries in the office of the High Court. Ramesh claimed that on 29.03.1997 he learnt that the respondent had obtained letters of administration in respect of the will of Balaji by filing another Petition No. 912/ 97. This was allowed to be withdrawn on 01.04.1998. He then filed an application for revocation on 29.07.1999.
17. In the present case, the letters of administration were granted in ancillary proceedings on 25.11.1994. The High Court took note of the fact that the notice of motion (in the disposed of proceeding) was filed on 29.03.1997; it was withdrawn on 01.04.1998. The petition for revocation of the letters of administration were filed on 29.7.1999. Proceedings were clearly time barred, given that the original grant of the ancillary letters took place on 25.11.1994; they constituted notice to all concerned. Clearly, the petition for revocation of letters of administration was time barred. It is accordingly held that there is no infirmity in the concurrent findings impugned; the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs."
25. In the present case also, the applicant has claimed that neither he nor his mother or any other family member had notice of the letters of administration petition and it is alleged that he came to know about the same only when he got knowledge of the publication dated 26.04.2012, however, no acceptable explanation is offered for such huge delay of Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:21:14 +0530 PC No. 5827/2016 Page 20 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
around 27 years in a probate court for cancellation or revocation for grant of letters of administration specially in the circumstances when the present petitioner has failed to prove his allegation that his signatures on the Will in question and verification clause in the petition in PC no. 191/1984 are forged and he was impersonated before the court in PC no. 191/84 on 24.04.1985. The proceedings are clearly time barred given that the original grant of the letters of administration took place on 16.05.1985; they constituted notice to all concerned as the grant of probate by a Competent Court operates as a judgment in rem and once the probate to the Will is granted, then such probate is good not only in respect of the parties to the proceedings, but against the world and if the probate is granted, the same operates from the date of the grant of the probate for the purpose of limitation Under Article 137 of the Limitation Act in proceedings for revocation of probate. No explanation worthy of acceptance has been offered by the applicant to show as to why he did not approach the Court of law within the period of limitation.
26. In view of the abovesaid discussion, material/ evidence on record and the settled legal position, I am of the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:21:21 +0530 PC No. 5827/2016 Page 21 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
considered opinion that the applicant failed to prove his allegations and accordingly issues no. 1, 2, 3 & 4 are decided against the revocation petitioner.
Issue No.7: Whether the petitioner is entitled for revocation for letters of administration granted in PC no.191/1984, as prayed by the petitioner in his petition u/s 263 of Indian Succession Act? OPP
27. As issues no. 1, 2, 3 & 4 have been decided against the applicant/ revocation petitioner. Accordingly, he is not entitled for revocation for letters of administration granted in PC no.191/1984 as prayed by him.
28. Accordingly, issue no. 7 is also decided against the revocation petitioner.
Issue No.5 and 6:
5. Whether the petition is false and abuse of process of law? OPR-1
6. Whether the petition is without any substance and cause of action, if so its consequences?OPR-1
29. As issues no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have already been decided against the petitioner, so I am of the considered opinion that these issues are liable to be struck off in exercise of power u/o XIV rule 5 CPC, 1908.
30. In view of the aforesaid, issues no. 5 & 6 are hereby Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:21:26 +0530 PC No. 5827/2016 Page 22 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Sh. Shivji Ram Vs. Smt. Saraswati Anrs.
struck off in exercise of power u/o XIV rule 5 CPC. Issue No.8: Relief
31. In view of the finding given qua issues no. 1, 2, 3 and 4, the present revocation petition is dismissed.
32. Main case file bearing PC No. 191/1984 in case title 'Saraswati Vs. State' be returned back to Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER Pronounced in the open Court SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 on this 9th day of June 2025 18:21:31 +0530 (DR. YADVENDER SINGH) DISTRICT JUDGE-02 SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI. PC No. 5827/2016 Page 23 of 23
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025