Delhi District Court
Seema Nagpal vs Ms. Anchal Jolly on 5 December, 2008
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI V.P. VAISH, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-07
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MPC No. 21/2007
(IN P.C. No. 461/06)
Date of institution: 25.09.2007
Judgment reserved on: 27.11.2008
Judgment pronounced on: 05.12.2008
Seema Nagpal,
W/o Shri V.K. Nagpal,
N-154, Greater Kailash,
Part-I, New Delhi-48 ......... Applicant
Versus
1. Ms. Anchal Jolly,
D/o Late Captain Parmod Jolly,
2. Raunak Jolly,
S/o Late Captain Parmod Jolly,
3. Smt. Anuradha Jolly,
Widow of Late Captain Parmod Jolly,
Now W/o Col. (Retd.) Baljit Singh
All R/o 434, Sector-29, Noida (U.P.) ........ Respondents
Application under Section 282 read with Section 383 of the
Indian Succession Act 1925 for cancellation of Probate
Order dated 16.03.2007 and revocation of Will dated
03.05.1992 on the ground of fraud and forgery.
JUDGMENT
This is a petition under Section 282 read with Section 383 of Seema Nagpal Vs. Anchal Jolly -: 2 :- the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for cancellation of probate / Letter of Administration granted on 16.03.2007, in Probate Case No. 461/06.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act was preferred by non-applicants, namely Ms. Anchal Jolly and Shri Raunak Jolly for grant of probate / Letter of Administration in respect of Will dated 03.05.1992 purported to have been executed by Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly wife of later Dr. Surinder Nath Jolly. Smt. Anuradha Jolly was made respondent No.2 in the main petition, who filed her affidavit giving her no objection to the petition. Citation was issued in the newspaper 'National Herald' but no one appeared from the general public to file any objection. My learned predecessor, vide Judgment dated 16.03.2007 allowed the petition and ordered for grant of Letter of Administration with copy of Will Ex.Pw-1/E with regard to the property as mentioned in Schedule A filed with the petition, subject to completion of formalities such as administration bond with surety and requisite court fee.
3. The case of the applicant is that she has been tenant in respect of portion shown in green colour in the site plan of property bearing No. N-154, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi since 1987 under Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly (now deceased) on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- but the non applicants have deliberately and malafidely concealed the factum of tenancy while obtaining probate. It is alleged by applicant that the deceased Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly used to live Seema Nagpal Vs. Anchal Jolly -: 3 :- alone since 1972 after the death of her husband Shri S.N. Jolly, the applicant used to look after her and used to maintain her as a daughter would do. No relative of Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly, if any, ever came forward to support her physically, economically or even mentally and she expired on 06.03.2006. It is stated that the applicant used to remit entire electricity and water bills along with house tax in respect of the said property. It is also stated that the non applicants no. 1 & 2 in collusion with non applicant No.3 fabricated a document of Will purported to have been executed by Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly, in favour of non applicant No.2 and played fraud and forgery.
4. The applicant, Smt. Seema Nagpal has sought revocation of letter of administration on the grounds inter-alia that the alleged Will dated 03.05.1992 shows that non applicant No.3 Smt. Anuradha Jolly was debarred by deceased Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly but at the same time she was appointed an executor of the said Will, the petition for probate was hit by Section 222 of the Act as the petition was preferred by non applicants No. 1 and 2 herein and not by non applicant No.3, a bare perusal of the Will dated 03.05.1992 goes to show that the year '92' has been forged from '1990', in the Will Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly has been described as 'testator' and she being a lady had to be described as 'testatrix' and Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly has signed in English as 'Shanta Jolly' below the word testator and to the knowledge of the universe, Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly always used to sign in Hindi as Shanti Devi.
Seema Nagpal Vs. Anchal Jolly -: 4 :-
5. The application has been contested by the non applicants by filing reply to the same on the grounds that the application is neither signed nor verified by applicant Smt. Seema Nagpal, the application under Section 282 read with Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act for cancellation of probate is not maintainable. The applicant is a tenant and she has no locus standi to challenge the probate on the grounds set out under Section 263 of the Act, provisions of Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked by any individual who does not have any right in the intestate succession under the Indian Succession Act. On merits, the non applicants denied the allegations made in the application. It is denied that non applicants No. 1 and 2 in collusion with non applicant No.3 fabricated and forged Will dated 03.05.1992.
6. The applicant filed rejoinder to the reply and reiterated the averments made in the application.
7. On the pleadings of parties following issues were framed on 15.07.2008:-
1. Whether the applicant has the locus standi to file the revocation application? OPA
2. Whether the Letter of Administration issued pursuant to the Judgment dated 16.03.2007 is liable to be revoked in view of the grounds stated in the revocation application? OPA
3. Relief.
Seema Nagpal Vs. Anchal Jolly -: 5 :-
8. My learned predecessor treated issue No.1 as preliminary issue as the same is a legal issue, vide order dated 15.07.2008.
9. I have heard Shri Jawhar Chawla Advocate, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Ashok Wadhera Advocate learned counsel for non applicants. I have also carefully gone through material on record.
10. Ld counsel for the applicant submitted that the non applicants never resided in the property in question, the same is clear from the fact that the non applicants applied for electricity connection after grant of letter of administration. He also submitted that an application for change or correction in permanent account number of Shri Surinder Nath Jolly was filed on 20.10.2007, election identify card in the name of Shri Surinder Nath was issued on 2nd July 1995. The counsel for applicant also pointed out that the writing on the copy of sale deed dated 22.04.1964 is in different writing with the original sale deed, which creates suspicion.
11. On the other hand Mr. Ashok Wadhera Advocate, learned counsel for non applicants submitted that the permanent account number was not delivered to Shri Surinder Nath, the same is addressed to Shri Surinder Nath. Similarly, the election identity card was issued on 2nd July 1995 but it is not clear when the same was applied. The counsel for non applicants contended that the applicant is a tenant only, she had attorned to the non applicants and she has no Seema Nagpal Vs. Anchal Jolly -: 6 :- right to move an application for revocation of letter of administration.
12. At the outset it may be mentioned that applicant has preferred application under Section 282 read with Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act. Section 282 of the Act provides punishment for false averments in petition or declaration. Section 383 of the Act provides for revocation of succession certificate. During arguments, learned counsel for both the parties agreed that the present application be considered under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.
13. Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act lays down the grounds under which the grant of probate / Letters of Administration may be revoked or annulled. It reads as under:-
"263. Revocation or annulment for just cause.-The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause.
Explanation- Just cause shall be deemed to exist where-
(a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; or
(b) the grant was obtained fraudulent 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 Seema Nagpal Vs. Anchal Jolly -: 7 :-
(d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or
(e) the person to whom the grant was made has wilfully 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."
14. It is settled principle of law that the person applying for revocation of probate or letter of administration must have an interest in the estate of the deceased, assuming that the deceased died intestate. In this regard reliance can be placed on a judgment in case titled as George Anthony Harris Vs. Millicent Spencer reported as AIR 1933 Bombay 370. In the said case it was held that a person applying for revocation for the grant must show that he has an interest in the alleged Will i.e. in the estate of the deceased disposed of by the alleged Will. There must be some interest and even the slightest interest is sufficient to apply for revocation.
15. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in case Sadanand Pyne Vs. Harinam Sha and Anr. reported as AIR 1950 Calcutta 179 has observed that in order to have the locus standi to apply for revocation of the probate, a person must have an interest in the estate of the deceased presuming he had died intestate.
16. In another case titled as Smt. Sima Rani Mohanty Vs. Seema Nagpal Vs. Anchal Jolly -: 8 :- Pushpa Rani reported as AIR 1978 Calcutta 140, it was held that any interest, however, slight and even the bare possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to make an application for revocation.
17. Mr. Chawla Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a stranger has right to move an application for revocation of letter of administration. In support of his submission he has relied upon a Judgment in case titled as N. Natrajan Vs. B.K. Subbarao reported as AIR 2003 Supreme Court 541. I have carefully gone through the said Judgment. The same is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the said case it was held that complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in respect of offences affecting administration of justice can be lodged even by a stranger to the proceedings.
18. Admittedly, in the instant case the applicant, Smt. Seema Nagpal is a tenant in property No. N-154, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi. The applicant is not legal heir of deceased Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly and she had no interest in the property of the deceased.
19. A similar question cropped up before our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Dharam Devi & Ors. Vs. Bishamber Nath reported as ILR (1971) II Delhi 661. In the said case it was held that the appellants are not the legal heirs of the testator and had no interest in the property bequeathed under the will. It was held that the appellants had no locus standi to ask for the revocation of the probate.
20. In another case titled as R.N. Gupta & Ors. Vs. State reported as 1995 Rajdhani Law Reporter 474, it was held that an application for revocation lies only if the applicant had a share in the assets of the deceased if later had died intestate.
Seema Nagpal Vs. Anchal Jolly -: 9 :-
21. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that the applicant Smt. Seema Nagpal is a tenant. The law is well settled that a tenant has no right to challenge the Will of the landlord. In this regard reliance can be placed on a judgment in case titled as Jagdish Lal Aggarwal Vs. Baldev Raj Etc reported as 1997 Rajdhani Law Reporter 651.
22. In the instant case, the applicant has stated in the application that she has been tenant in respect of portion of property No. N-154, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi since 1987 under Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly. The applicant has no interest in the estate of deceased because she is not a legal heir of the deceased. Thus, the applicant Smt. Seema Nagpal has no locus standi to apply for revocation of the letter of administration, granted to the non applicants. Accordingly, preliminary issue is decided in favour of non applicants and against the applicant.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion and my finding on the preliminary issue, the applicant Smt. Seema Nagpal has no locus standi to move application under Section 263 of the Act for revocation or cancellation of letter of administration, granted to non applicants No. 1 and 2 in PC No. 461/2006. Accordingly, the application for revocation of letters of administration is dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (V.P. VAISH)
on this 5th day of December 2008 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-07
(CENTRAL) DELHI
Sadique
Seema Nagpal Vs. Anchal Jolly