Delhi District Court
Usha Kamra vs State on 15 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE(CENTRAL )
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Misc. DJ No.411/17
CNR No. DLCT01-011274-2017
1. Smt. Usha Kamra
W/o Sh. Surinder Kamra,
D/o Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar,
R/o QU-85, DDA LIG Flats,
Pitampura, New Delhi-110092
2. Smt. Rekha Dua
W/o Sh. Ashok Dua,
D/o Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar,
R/o F2 B, 9th floor, Golf Link Apartments,
Sector 18B, Dwarka,
New Delhi. ...........Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Chander Prakash (Now Deceased)
Through Legal Heirs
a) Smt. Neelam Dawar (Wife)
W/o Late Sh. Chander Prakash
R/o B-124, Pachvati Society,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018
b) Sh. Himanshu Dawar (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Chander Prakash,
R/o B-124, Pachvati Society,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018
c) Smt. Bhavna Dawar (daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Chander Prakash,
R/o B-124, Pachvati Society,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018
Digitally
2. Smt. Anjana Baweja (now Deceased) VIRENDER
signed by
VIRENDER
KUMAR
Through Legal Heirs KUMAR
BANSAL
BANSAL
Date:
2025.10.15
16:05:39
+0530
Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 1 of 27
a) Sh. Om Prakash Baweja (husband)
R/o Bt/9, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051
b) Smt. Renu Kalra (daughter)
W/o Sh. Praveen Kalra,
R/o 9/3822 Dharampura,
Street no.5, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031
c) Smt. Neetu Nagpal (daughter)
W/o Sh. Ajay Nagpal,
R/o BE-86, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi-110088
d) Sh. Rohit Baweja (son)
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Baweja
R/o B-6/9, Lal Quarters,
Krishna Nagar, delhi-110051.
3. Smt. Anita Baweja (sister)
W/o Sh. Harish Baweja
R/o DU-129, Pitampura,
New Delhi.
4. Smt. Usha Rani (sister in law)
W/o Late Sh. Gulshan Rai,
R/o 713/44, Shambu Nagar,
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
5. Sh. Hitesh Kumar (nephew)
S/o Late Sh. Gulshan Rai,
R/o 713/44, Shambu Nagar,
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
6. Sh. Khem Chand (nephew)
S/o Late Sh. Gulshan Rai,
R/o 713/44, Shambu Nagar,
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
Digitally signed
7. Smt. Rajni Girdhar (niece) VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
by VIRENDER
W/o Sh. Neeraj Kumar Girdhar, BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15
16:05:44 +0530
Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 2 of 27
R/o B-2/56, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi. ............Respondents
Date of filing of application : 05.05.2015
Date of arguments : 24.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 15.10.2025
AND
Misc. DJ No.707/17
CNR No. DLCT01-018113-2017
1. Smt. Usha Kamra
W/o Sh. Surinder Kamra,
D/o Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar,
R/o QU-85, DDA LIG Flats,
Pitampura, New Delhi-110092
2. Smt. Rekha Dua
W/o Sh. Ashok Dua,
D/o Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar,
R/o F2 B, 9th floor, Golf Link Apartments,
Sector 18B, Dwarka,
New Delhi. ...........Petitioners
Versus
1. State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
2. Sh. Hitesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Gulshan Rai,
R/o 713/44, Shambhu Nagar,
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
3. Sh. Khem Chand
S/o Late Sh. Gulshan Rai,
R/o 713/44, Shambhu Nagar,
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
4. Smt. Usha Rani (sister in law) Digitally
W/o Late Sh. Gulshan Rai, signed by
VIRENDER
VIRENDER KUMAR
R/o 713/44, Shambhu Nagar, KUMAR BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.15
16:05:49
+0530
Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 3 of 27
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
5. Smt. Rajni Girdhar
W/o Sh. Neeraj Kumar Girdhar,
D/o Late Sh. Gulshan Rai,
R/o B-2/56, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi. ............Respondents
Date of filing of application : 06.05.2015
Date of arguments : 24.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 15.10.2025
AND
Misc. DJ No.706/17
CNR No. DLCT01-018112-2017
1. Smt. Usha Kamra
W/o Sh. Surinder Kamra,
D/o Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar,
R/o QU-85, DDA LIG Flats,
Pitampura, New Delhi-110092
2. Smt. Rekha Dua
W/o Sh. Ashok Dua,
D/o Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar,
R/o F2 B, 9th floor, Golf Links Apartments,
Sector 18B, Dwarka,
New Delhi. ...........Petitioners
Versus
1. State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
2) Smt. Neelam Dawar
W/o Late Sh. Chander Prakash
R/o B-124, Pachvati Society,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi
3) Sh. Himanshu Dawar
S/o Late Sh. Chander Prakash, Digitally signed
R/o B-124, Pachvati Society, by VIRENDER
VIRENDER KUMAR
BANSAL
KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.15
16:05:54
+0530
Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 4 of 27
Vikaspuri, New Delhi
4) Kumari Bhavna Dawar
D/o Late Sh. Chander Prakash,
R/o B-124, Pachvati Society,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018
............Respondents
Date of filing of application : 06.05.2015
Date of arguments : 24.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 15.10.2025
ORDER:
1. Separate applications under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act in short 'Act' has been moved seeking revocation of probate/ letters of administration granted by this court vide order dated 21.04.2003, in Misc. DJ No.411/17 and order dated 26.10.2006 in Misc. DJ Nos. 706/17 and 707/17, by Smt. Usha Kamra and Smt. Rekha Dua both daughters of Amar Nath Dawar and Sh. Sunil Kumar Dawar s/o Sh Amar Nath Dawar (herein after referred as 'objectors').
2. The facts relevant for deciding the application are that Sh. Chander Prakash during his life time filed petition for grant of probate of will dated 23.02.1963 executed by Sh. Jiwan Dass, who passed away in 1964. Sh. Chander Parkash along with the petition filed the list of relatives naming himself, two sisters namely Anjana Baweja and Anita Baweja and legal heirs of his late brother Sh. Gulshan Rai namely Smt. Usha Rani (sister-in- law), Hitesh Kumar and Khem Chand (Nephews) and Smt. Rajni Girdhar (niece). The said probate petition was allowed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 21.04.2003, thereby granting Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 5 of 27 KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:06:00 +0530 Letters of Administration in respect of the said will in favour of Shri Chander Prakash.
3. The objectors have filed the present applications dated 05.05.2015 in Misc. DJ No. 411/17 and 06.05.2015 in Misc. DJ No.707/17 and 706/17, seeking revocation of Letters of Administration, claiming that the petitioners in probate petitions bearing PC No.187/2000, PC No.83/06/04 and PC No.308/06/04 had concealed names of six more legal representatives of Sh. Jiwan Dass and thus obtained the Letters of Administration by playing fraud on the court. However, during pendency of the application Sh. Sunil Dawar withdrew himself from the array of objectors and request was allowed by my Ld. predecessor vide order dated 10.05.2016 in Misc. DJ No.411/17.
4. It is also pleaded that the will propounded by Sh. Chander Prakash is a forged and fabricated document for the reasons pleaded in the application. It is also alleged that the shop in respect of which the letters of Administration was granted was earlier occupied by a tenant who was paying rent to the father of the objectors and after the death of their father, he started paying rent to their mother and thereafter to Sh. Sunil Dawar.
5. It is alleged that Sh. Sunil Dawar received a notice dated 28.04.2014 of an earlier revocation application filed by his brother Sh. Sanjeev Dawar. That revocation application was dismissed in default in January 2015. Prior to that the objectors were not aware of grant of letters of administration as their relations with the remaining legal heirs were strained.
Digitally
signed by
VIRENDER
VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 6 of 27 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15
16:06:05
+0530
6. During the pendency Sh. Chander Prakash and Smt. Anjana Baweja died and their LRs were brought on record.
7. The respondents filed the reply to the application taking preliminary objections that the application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
8. The applicants have not approached the court with clean hands and have concealed the material fact of filing similar petition in the court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar ADJ 02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
9. It is alleged that there is delay in moving the present application. The petition filed by the answering respondents was allowed way back in 2006 and as such the petition for revocation moved in March 2014 is barred by limitation.
10. It is alleged that applicants have full knowledge that neither they nor their late father Sh. Amar Nath was having any right in the suit property and more so the registered will dated 23.02.1963 executed before the sub-registrar, Delhi has been duly proved and only thereafter the petition was allowed. This fact itself belie the contention of the applicants. It is alleged that as the probate has already been granted after considering all the aspects and after the will was duly proved by examining the attesting witnesses, the clock can not be ordered to be rolled back on mere asking.
11. In reply on merits it is alleged that all the proper and necessary parties were impleaded in the probate proceedings. It is Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 7 of 27 KUMAR BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:06:10 +0530 specifically stated that the will dated 23.02.1963 is the last will and testament of late Sh. Jiwan Dass s/o Sh. Hari Chand. In the will it was specifically mentioned that after the demise of the testator property in question shall vest with the grand sons, Gulshan Rai and Chander Prakash both sons of Sh. Satpal caste Dawar Arora r/o Bara Hindu Rao, House No. 4756, Bazar Ahata Kidara, Old Delhi. It is alleged that as per the will no one else was to be made a party and accordingly Late Sh. Chander Prakash filed the correct petition impleading the proper parties in the petition. It is denied that intentionally the other legal heirs of Late Sh. Jiwan Dass were not made parties to the petition.
12. It is denied that the letters of administration has been obtained on the basis of forged will or by playing fraud on the court. It is prayed that the application be dismissed.
13. The applicants filed rejoinder to the reply denying the averments made in the reply and re-asserting the facts mentioned in the application.
14. There were other applications also i.e. Misc DJ No. 706/2017 and 707/2017 both titled Usha Kamra v State. These applications were also consolidated with this application and on 22.12.2021 the following issues were framed by my Ld. predecessor.
1. Whether the application for revocation of letter of administration was filed within time prescribed by law? OPP Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:06:15 +0530 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 8 of 27
2. Whether the applicants were necessary or proper parties to the probate proceedings initiated by the present respondent? OPP
3. Whether the Will of Sh. Jiwan Dass, propounded by the respondent is a forged or fabricated document? OPP
4. Whether the applicants are entitled to revocation letters of administration granted in favour of the respondents? OPP
5. Relief
15. Thereafter the matter was fixed for evidence of the applicants.
16. At this stage an applications under Order VIII Rule 4 read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC was moved by the applicants.
17. The respondents have filed reply to the application.
18. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants, Ld. Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
19. Ld. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents despite being conscious of the fact of other legal representatives/family members of Late Sh. Jiwan Dass Dawar, deliberately and fraudulently did not make all the legal heirs party in the petition for grant of probate. Ld. Counsel submitted that admittedly the applicants herein are the legal heirs of Late Sh. Jiwan Dass Dawar and were not made party, though the respondents were aware about them.
20. Ld. Counsel submitted that as per section 278 (1) (b) of Indian Succession Act, 1925. The section reads as follows:
Digitally signed by VIRENDERVIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 9 of 27 16:06:19 +0530 "278. Petition for letters of administration .(1) Application for letters of administration shall be made by petition distinctly written as aforesaid and stating
(a) the time and place of the deceaseds death;
(b) the family or other relatives of the deceased, and their respective residences;
(c) the right in which the petitioner claims;
(d) the amount of assets which are likely to come to the petitioners hands;
(e) when the application is to the District Judge, that the deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode, or had some property, situate within the jurisdiction of the Judge; and
(f) when the application is to a District Delegate, that the deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of such Delegate.
(2) Where the application is to the District Judge and any portion of the assets likely to come to the petitioners hands is situate in another State, the petition shall further state the amount of such assets in each State and the District Judges within whose jurisdiction such assets are situate."
21. Ld. Counsel submitted that from the bare reading of the section it is clear that in a petition for letters of administration all the family members or other relatives of the deceased have to be joined as party. The respondents were fully aware of the existing legal heirs of Late Sh. Jiwan Dass, and this fact can be ascertained from the alleged will dated 23.02.1963 itself, wherein it is clearly mentioned that:
"I have two sons namely Satpal aged 35 years and Amarnath aged 25 years. I have five daughters and my wife Smt. Daya Wanti aged 60 years is alive"
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:06:25 +0530 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 10 of 27
22. Ld. Counsel submitted that the applicants are daughters of Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar. The respondent by not making them party in the petition for letters of administration committed fraud. It is settled law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law.
23. Ld. Counsel further submitted that section 263 of Indian Succession Act reads as follows:
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 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 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.
illustrations
(i) The Court by which the grant was made had no jurisdiction.
(ii) The grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited.
(iii) The Will of which probate was obtained was forged or revoked.
(iv) A obtained letters of administration to the estate of B, as his widow, but it has since transpired that she was never married to him.
Digitally
signed by
VIRENDER
VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 11 of 27 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15
16:06:30
+0530
(v) A has taken administration to the estate of B as if he had died intestate, but a Will has since been discovered.
(vi) Since probate was granted, a latter Will has been discovered.
(vii) Since probate was granted, a codicil has been discovered which revokes or adds to the appointment of executors under the Will.
(viii) The person to whom probate was, or letters of administration were, granted has subsequently become of unsound mind.
24. Ld. Counsel submitted that the act of non-citing necessary parties i.e. the present applicants, make the probate proceedings defective in substance as the grant was obtained by making false suggestions and by concealing the material facts. The illustration
(ii) to section 263 clearly provides that grant made without citing parties who ought to have been cited is a just cause for revocation/ annulment of probate and letters of administration.
25. Ld. Counsel submitted that the respondents do not deny that the applicants herein are the daughters of Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar and thus necessary party. Their plea is that only the legal heirs of Satpal Dawar were proper party as per the will and therefore only those were joined as party. There is no denial of the fact that Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar was son of Late Sh. Jiwan Dass. Under the circumstances the legal heirs of Late Sh. Amarnath were necessary party, and as they were not joined hence the letters of administration issued by the court are liable to be revoked.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date: BANSAL 2025.10.15 16:06:35 +0530 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 12 of 27
26. Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment cited as Badami (deceased) by her L.R. v Bhali, (2012) 11 SCC 574 wherein it was held that:
"19. Presently, we shall refer as to how this Court has dealt with concept of fraud. In S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna, 1979(2) RCR (Rent) 455 while dealing with the concept of estoppel and fraud a two-Judge Bench has stated that it is an old maxim that estoppels are odious, although considerable inroad into this maxim has been made by modern law. Even so, "a judgment obtained by fraud or collusion, even, it seems a judgment of the House of Lords, may be treated as a nullity". (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 16 Fourth Edition para 1553). The point is that the sanction granted under Section 21, if it has been procured by fraud or collusion, cannot withstand invalidity because, otherwise, high public policy will be given as hostage to successful collusion."
27. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as S.P. Chengalvarya Naidu v Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 wherein it was held that:
"Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal"
observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court
- has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.
6. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:06:40 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 13 of 27 +0530 litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the, illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."
28. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as Swaminathan & Ors. v Alankamony(dead) through LRs, 2022 INSC 283, wherein it was held that:
"2. The appellants sought Letters of Administration of a registered Will deed dated 23.08.1991 said to have been executed by one Thankappan Nadar in favour of the appellant - brother of the testator and his two sons. After the grant of Letters of Administration, another brother of testator filed an application for revocation of the Letters of Administration on the ground that all the legal heirs were not impleaded in the proceedings for the grant of Letters of Administration. The Civil Court dismissed the application for revocation but the order was set aside in appeal. Aggrieved, the legatee is in appeal before this Court.
6. As per Section 263, the grant of Letters of Administration may be revoked for "just cause".
Explanation (a) under Section 263 states that just cause shall be deemed to exist where the proceedings were defective in substance. Illustration (ii) under Section 263 deals with a case where "the grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited".
7. It may be of interest to note that some of the colonial statutes contain Illustrations which form part of the statutes themselves. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is one such enactment.
8. Therefore, the High Court was right in holding that a just cause existed for revoking the grant. Hence, we do not find any error in the order of the High Court Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:06:44 +0530 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 14 of 27 warranting our interference. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed."
29. Ld. Counsel submitted that so far as the ground of limitation is concerned in cases of decree obtained by concealment of facts and by playing fraud the limitation will start running from the date the fact came to light. The applicants were not having any knowledge of the probate proceedings. The knowledge can be assumed at the most when the tenant from the property mentioned in the will was evicted. From that date the petition is within limitation. There is no other evidence that the applicants were having knowledge of the probate proceedings and the fraud played on them as well as the Court. It is prayed that in view of the clear admission of the respondents that the applicants herein who are daughters of Late Sh. Amarnath were not made parties though they were necessary party in view of Section 278 of Indian Succession Act, the order dated 21.04.2003 is liable to be revoked. It is prayed that the application be allowed and the letters of administration be revoked.
30. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that Late Sh.
Jiwan Dass was owner of shop no. 325, Punjabi Bazar, Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. He executed a will dated 23.02.1963 with regard to this shop, which was occupied by tenant namely Sh. Nanak Chand. According to the will the above shop shall go to the grandsons of testator namely Sh. Gulshan Rai Dawar and Sh. Chander Prakash Dawar, sons of Late Sh. Satpal Dawar.
31. Ld. Counsel submitted that the first half portion of the shop was transferred in the name of Sh. Chander Parkash Dawar Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 15 of 27 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:06:50 +0530 vide final order dated 21.04.2003 in probate case no 187/2000. This portion is currently owned by Smt. Neelam Dawar w/o Late Sh. Chander Prakash Dawar after his death.
32. Second half of the shop is owned by the sons of Late Sh. Gulshan Rai Dawar namely Hitesh Kumar Dawar and Sh. Khem Chand Dawar, transferred to them in probate case no. 83/06/2004 decided on 09.04.2008.
33. Ld. Counsel submitted that according to the applicants the respondents have obtained the probate by playing fraud on the court in the sense that names of the present applicants were not their in the petition as legal representatives, despite the same being mentioned in the will.
34. Ld. Counsel submitted that for the sake of arguments, if it is considered that Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar was co-owner of the shop even then the shop as per will of Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar dated 25.03.1996 goes to Smt. Usha Rani respondent No. 4 and not to the objectors.
35. Ld. Counsel further submitted that as per the family settlement dated 10.06.1996 of LRs of Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar, the shop in question goes to Sh. Sunil Kumar Dawar, who has already withdrawn himself as applicant vide application dated 07.09.2015. In that eventuality also the property does not go the applicants herein.
36. Ld. Counsel submitted that in fact the applicants herein have played fraud upon the court by filing a false and frivolous Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 16 of 27 BANSAL 2025.10.15 16:07:13 +0530 application because since 1996 the applicants and other LRs of late Sh. Amarnath were knowing this fact that the shop does not belong to them.
37. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the respondents have not concealed any fact from the court. In fact the respondents never knew where the applicants were or even alive. Sons of testator i.e. Sh. Satpal Dawar and Sh. Amarnath Dawar had separated in the year 1995. It is an admitted fact on the part of Sh. Sunil Kumar Dawar. As such the LRs of Satpal Dawar were not in contact with the applicants.
38. Ld. Counsel submitted that by not making them a party in the probate proceedings have not caused any loss to them. First and foremost, none of the legal heirs of Late Sh. Amarnath Dawar was given any share in the shop in the said will and till date nothing has been brought on record to show that the will was not genuine. It is prayed that keeping in view all these facts the application be dismissed.
39. Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment cited as Anil Bihari Gosh v Latika Bala Dassi, AIR 1955 SC 566, wherein it was held that:
"The omission to issue citations to persons who should have been apprised of the probate proceedings may well be in a normal case a ground by itself for revocation of the grant But this is not as absolute right irrespective of other considerations arising from the proved facts of a case. The law has vested a. judicial discretion in the Court to revoke a grant where the Court may have 'prima facie' reasons to believe that it was necessary to have the will proved afresh in the presence of interested parties. But in the present Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:07:20 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 17 of 27 +0530 case we are not' satisfied in all the circumstances of the case that just cause within the meaning of Section 263 had been made out. We cannot ignore the facts that about 27 years had elapsed after the grant of probate in 1921, that Girish in spite of the knowledge of the grant at the latest in 1933 did not fake any steps in his lifetime to have the grant revoked, that there was no suggestion that the will was a forgery or was otherwise invalid and that the will was a registered one and had been executed eight years before the testator's unnatural death. Hence the omission of citations to Girish which ordinarily may have been 'sufficient for a revocation of the grant was not in the special circumstances of this case sufficient to justify the Court to revoke the grant.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant made pointed reference to the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in - 'Ramanandi Kuer v.
Kalawati Kuer', AIR 1928 Privy Council 2. But that case is an authority for the proposition that where two grounds are taken for revocation of a grant viz., (1) that persons who ought to have been cited were not cited, and (2) that the will was a forgery, if the first ground is established, the onus is upon the opponents to prove that the will is genuine. That case is no authority for the proposition that. in every case where there is a defect in citation, the Court must order a revocation or annulment of the grant The annulment is a matter of substance and not of mere form. The Court may refuse to grant annulment in cases where there is no likelihood of proof being offered that the will admitted to probate was either not genuine or had not been validly executed. But, as rightly pointed out by the lower appellate Court, in the present case where the validity or genuineness of the will has not been challenged, it would serve no useful purpose to revoke the grant and to make the parties go through the mere formality of proving the will over again. In our opinion, therefore, the omission of citation has had no effect on the regularity of the proceedings resulting in the grant of 1921."
40. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as S. A. Modi v Mrs. T. A. Rana and others, AIR 2004 Bombay 353, wherein it was held that: Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:07:26 +0530 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 18 of 27 "12. The judgment of the Privy Council in Ramananda Kuer v. Kalawati Kuer (supra) has been considered by the Apex Court in Anil Behari wherein it has been held that Ramananda Kuer is not an authority for the proposition that in every case where there is defect in citation, the Court must order a revocation or annulment of the grant.
The Apex Court held that the Court may refuse to grant annulment in cases where there is no likelihood of proof being offered that the Will admitted to probate was either not genuine or had not been validly executed. In the light of the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court, the refusal to revoke the grant may be justified in the case where though there is omission to issue citation to necessary party but there is no possibility of proof being offered due to the death of witnesses and executors and there is no challenge to the genuineness of the Will. In the present case there is no specific challenge to the genuineness of Will in the petition. Even if it be assumed that there is challenge to the genuineness of the Will by the petitioner on the basis of letters written by him to the Prothonotary and Senior Master, the fact remains that on the date the petition for revocation of the grant was made by the petitioner, the witnesses to the Will had died and thus, there was no likelihood of the proof being offered by the respondents that the Will of which the probate has been granted was genuine and validly executed.
13. There is substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that even otherwise at this point of time when the entire estate of the deceased testator has been administered, it would be impossible to retrieve the said estate either as it is or in a monetary terms and, therefore, it would not be just and proper under Section 263 for revocation of the grant of probate."
41. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as Promode Kumar Roy v Sephalika Dutta, AIR 1957 Calcutta 631, wherein it was held that:
"14. The net position then is that an applicant for revocation must, in order to succeed, establish just cause within the meaning of Section 263, that is, as laid down in clauses (a) to (e) thereof, but, even if just cause be established, revocation may still be refused by the Court in the exercise of its discretion under that section, if the facts and circumstances of the particular case would warrant Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.15 16:07:31 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 19 of 27 +0530 such refusal. In this view we shall consider first whether the appellant has succeeded in proving any just cause for revocation in the present case and if we hold in the affirmative on that question we shall consider next whether, in the circumstances of the present case, an order for revocation should be made in the exercise of our discretion under the section."
42. Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments further relied upon the judgment cited as In the Goods of Late Sudhendu Kumar Basu & Others v Amar Krishna Basu & Others, AIR 2016 Patna 15, wherein it was held that:
"33. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court has to see whether the petitioner has been able to prove just cause in terms of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act compelling this Court to revoke the grant of probate given in the earlier proceeding. From the facts in the present case it is apparently clear that the transfer application was filed for transfer of Probate Case No. 111 of 1987 from the court of District Judge, Patna, ground has been shown of pendency of Testamentary Case No.1 of 1988. After due notice, order of transfer was passed. Thereafter Probate Case No.111 of 1987 was converted to Testamentary Case No. 2 of 1989 before this Court and both were moving together as per the order of this Court and Testamentary Case No. 2 of 1989 was dismissed on account of non- compliance of the order. When both the cases were moving together they cannot say that they had no knowledge about Testamentary Case No.1 of 1988 so much so the evidence of P.W.1 Jagdish Prasad and P.W.3 Pramod Kumar in their examination in-chief in a categorical term has said that they had knowledge of Testamentary Case No.1 of 1988 and they were of the view that both cases will be decided together, but their case was dismissed and Testamentary Case No. 1 of 1988 was proceeded and decided ex parte. It is also to be noticed that on the order of this Court, general citation was issued in two news papers which was meant to disseminate the information about the pendency of probate case and whoever had any interest in the property were called upon to file caveat and file objection whatever objector deems it fit, even the proceeding of probate continued for a substantial period, applicant had not taken Digitally signed any step, to participate in the proceeding by raising any by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.15 16:07:35 +0530 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 20 of 27 objection, now they cannot turn round and claim prejudice on account of grant of probate."
43. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as Valerine Basil Pais v. Gilbert Willam James Pais, 1993 (2) DMC 150, wherein it was held that:
"3. It is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The grant of probate establishes the genuineness and the enforcibility of the Will and the person in whose favour the probate is granted is entitled to convey appropriate title arising out of the Will which was probated by the Court May be, under certain circumstances, the probate could be revoked. It is also possible as happened in the present case, the propounder of the Will did not take appropriate steps to notify the other heirs before obtaining the probate. But the third party who acts bona fide and deals with the person who obtained the probate and purchases the property cannot be made answerable to the fraud or the mistake committed by the propounder of the Will. Law does not expect the third party like the second defendant to examine whether the probate was properly obtained and whether all the procedural requirements were satisfied before the probate was granted by the Court. Section 227 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, says that probate of a Will when granted establishes the Will from the death of the testator and renders valid all intermediate acts of the executor as such. Section 297 declares that when a grant of probate is revoked, all payments bona fide made to any executor or administrator under such grant before the revocation shall, notwithstanding such revocation, be a legal discharge to the person making the same...etc Section 273 provides for the conclusiveness of probate and states that probate shall have effect over all the property and estate of the deceased throughout the State in which the same is granted and shall be conclusive as to the representative title against all debtors of the deceased, etc. The principle is brought out by the learned Author B.B. Mitra in, "the Indian Succession Act," 1925 (1979 Edition) at page 411, while referring to Section 273, thus :
"This Section affords protection to debtors making bona fide payments to an executor or administrator before revocation of the grant. Even though letters of administration have been obtained by fraud, still so long as Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:07:40 +0530 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 21 of 27 the grant remains unrevoked, the grantee, though a rogue and an imposter, is to all intents and purposes the administrator. He alone represents the estate of the deceased...""
44. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as Chandra Kanta Medhi & Ors. V. Lakheswar Nath & Ors.:
AIR 1976 Gauhati 94, wherein it was held that:
"7. The first submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that as the Jikafuli's heirs, who had interest in the property involved in the will have not been made par- ties to the probate proceedings and no notices were issued to them, the proceedings have been vitiated. In support of his contention learned counsel relies on S. 283(1)(c) of the Act, which is in the following terms: "283. (1) In all cases the District Judge or District Delegate may, if he thinks proper, -----
...... ...... ...... .....
(c) issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration."
Sub-section (2) of Section 283 of the Act may also be read:
"(2) The citation shall be fixed up in some conspicuous part of the Court-house, and also in the office of the Collector of the district and otherwise published or made known in such manner as the Judge or District Delegate issuing the same may direct".
It is apposite in this connection to refer to Section 373(1) of the Act, which reads as under:
"373 (1). If the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application, he shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing-
(a) to be served on any person to whom, in the opinion of the Judge, special notice of the application should be given, and Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:07:46 +0530 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 22 of 27
(b) to be posted on some conspicuous part of the court-
house and published in such other manner, if any, as the Judge subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf, thinks fit, and.........
Section 373 of the Act provides the procedure to be followed by the District Judge on an application for succession certificate. Section 372 provides for an application for a succession certificate. Under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 372 "the family or other near relatives of the deceased and their respective residences"
have to be mentioned. On the other hand Section 276 of the Act, which provides for a petition for probate, does not provide for mentioning the names of the members of the family or relatives of the testator or testatrix in the petition for probate. In case of a succession certificate the law provides for issuing both special and general citations, but in case of probate proceedings Section 283 does not provide for issuing special citations. Section 283(1)(c) provides only for issue of general citation calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate. But as there is no provision for special citation under sub-section (2) of Section 283, it has been made mandatory that the citations shall be fixed up in some conspicuous part of the court house and also in the office of the Collector of the district and otherwise published or made known in such manner as the Judge or District Delegate issuing the same may direct. As a proposition of law, therefore, it cannot be said that special citations are to be issued to per-sons having interest in the property involved in the will. In the instant case, however, special citations were issued, albeit not to the heirs of Jikafuli, and also general citations were issued. There has been no violation of law in issuing the citations in the instant case, and, as such the probate proceedings have not been vitiated, as con-tended by learned counsel. The first submission of learned counsel has no substance".
45. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as Kanhaiya Missir and others v. Dinanath Missir: AIR 1968 Patna 270 (V 51 C 73), wherein Hon'ble Patna High Court has observed as under:- Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 23 of 27 2025.10.15 16:07:51 +0530 "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot succeed in view of the conclusions arrived at by the learned District Judge on the materials on record. It appears that there had been a partition in 1940, as evidenced by Exhibit A, a registered deed of partition, dated the 27th of January, 1940, in which the parties were Rajendra Missir, father of the appellants, and the widow of Indradeo Missir. The will in question was mentioned in that deed of partition and the fact of partition after the death of Indradeo Missir, between Rajendra and the widow has been admitted by Kanhaiya Missir, one of the appellants in this case. The learned Judge has held that the existence of the will and the grant of letters of administration were known to the applicants from a long time before the filing of the written statement by Dinanath. He has refused to accept the appellants'' case that they had come to know for the first time about the will and the grant from Dinanath''s written statement. Then it appears that the widow had taken all steps she had then thought necessary before obtaining a grant of letters of administration in her favour. In fact, notices had been served in the village by beat of drum. The learned Judge has held that the applicants before him were fully aware of the filing of the application for a grant of letters of administration by the widow. According to the learned Judge no fraud had been perpetrated by the widow in obtaining the grant and no facts had been suppressed by her in order to mislead anybody. Even if the appellants were persons who should have been appraised of the proceeding in 1952-1953, mere omission to issue citation to them cannot be an absolute ground for revoking the grant made in 1953. On the facts found by the learned District Judge, I am not in a position to hold that he exercised his discretion erroneously in refusing to revoke the grant made on the 18th of April, 1953. Therefore, in my opinion, the appeal is without any merit and it must be dismissed with costs."
46. Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the law as settled by the Apex Court and the other courts and the facts of the case there is no merit in the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and also the objections the same be dismissed. Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:07:56 +0530 Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 24 of 27
47. After hearing arguments, going through the judgments, record and the law on the point, it is clear that when the earlier petition was filed for letters of administration, all the LRs of Late Sh. Jiwan Dass were not impleaded as party. The petition was filed by Sh. Chander Prakash and he impleaded only Anjana Baweja and Anita Baweja, both sisters of the petitioner Sh. Chander Prakash, Smt. Usha Rani, sister-in-law of Chander Prakash and Smt. Usha Rani, wife of Late Sh. Gulshan Rai (brother of Chander Prakash), Hitesh Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Gulshan Rai, Khem Chand S/o Late Sh. Gulshan Rai and Smt. Rajni Girdhar, D/o of Late Sh. Gulshan Rai. It is important to note here that the Will on the basis of which the probate was filed, itself mentions that Sh. Jiwan Dass was having two sons namely Satpal and Amar Nath and five daughters. The petition has been filed only by the son of Satpal and he impleaded the LRs of Satpal only. The legal representatives/LRs of Amar Nath and five daughters were not impleaded at all. The plea taken is that as according to the Will, the property was to devolve upon only Gulshan Rai and Chander Prakash, both sons of Satpal, therefore there was no need to implead the other LRs. The law on this point is very clear. Section 278 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, which has been reproduced earlier in para 20 that in the application for letters of administration, it has to be distinctly written and mentions as to who are the family and other relatives of the deceased and their relatives residences. Section 278 does not provide that only those persons be made party on whom the property has to devolve by virtue of the Will in respect of which Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 25 of 27 KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:08:01 +0530 letters of administration has been moved. Section 263 of Indian Succession Act which deals with the Revocation or Annulment of the probate or letters of administration, in the illustration (ii) it has been specifically provided " the letters of administration can be revoked if the grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited".
48. In the present case, admittedly all the parties have not been cited. Therefore, it squarely falls within the ambit of Section 263 of Indian Succession Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaminathan & Ors. Vs Alankamony (dead) through LRs (supra) has held that if letters of administration has been obtained without citing parties who ought to have been cited, then it is just cause for the revocation of letters of administration. In the present case also when the letters of administration was obtained, all the parties were not cited which were required to be cited as per illustration (ii) to Section 263 of Indian Succession Act. Ld. Counsel for respondent has also taken a plea that the application is barred by limitation. I do not find any merit in this contention as it is settled law that if an order has been obtained by playing fraud, then the same is non-est. Such an order has to be treated as nullity. In the present case as discussed above, the letters of administration has been obtained by concealing the fact that there are other family members of Sh. Jiwan Dass. This fraud itself has made the orders dated 21.04.2003 and 26.10.2006 as nullity and therefore, the law of limitation cannot be seized to protect such an order which is non-est in the eyes of law. Therefore, the orders dated 21.04.2003 and 26.10.2006 vide Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 26 of 27 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.15 16:08:05 +0530 which the letters of administration were granted by this Court are liable to be revoked and accordingly, it is ordered that the order of probate/letters of administration granted by this Court vide orders dated 21.04.2003 and 26.10.2006 are hereby revoked. The applications are accordingly disposed of.
49. Original record be sent back to record room with copy of the order. Copy of the order be also placed in the original file bearing no. PC No.308/06/04.
50. Application file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedVIRENDER by VIRENDER Announced in the open Court KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.10.15 BANSAL on 15th day of October, 2025 16:08:12 +0530 (Virender Kumar Bansal) Principal District & Sessions Judge Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi(D) Misc DJ No.411/17, Misc. DJ No.707/17 and Misc. DJ No.706/17 Page 27 of 27