Delhi District Court
(Mpc No.21/07) (Seema Nagpal vs . Anchal Jolly & Ors.) on 28 April, 2008
(MPC No.21/07) (Seema Nagpal vs. Anchal Jolly & Ors.)
: 1:
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVINDER DUDEJA
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI.
MPC No. 21/2007
Smt. Seema Nagpal ............ Petitioner.
Versus
Ms. Anchal Jolly & Ors. ............ Respondents.
ORDER
1. By this order, I propose to decide the interim application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1& 2 read with Section 151 CPC. Arguments have been heard from the learned advocates of the parties. The main petition has been filed for the cancellation of probate order dated 16.3.2007 and revocation of Will dated 3.5.1992 on the ground of fraud and forgery. It has been argued that the respondents had manevoured to obtain the probate order dated 16.3.2007 without the knowledge of the applicant, who was tenant in respect of a portion of property under Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly (now deceased) at a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. It has been submitted that the respondents have deliberately and malafidely concealed the facts of tenancy from the court. It has been argued that the signature of the testatrix Smt. Shanti Devi Jolly on the Will are forged. She used to sign in Hindi as 'Shanti Devi' but the Will bears her signature in English as 'Shanta Jolly'. The application has been mainly opposed by the learned Counsel of the (MPC No.21/07) (Seema Nagpal vs. Anchal Jolly & Ors.) : 2: respondents on the ground that the applicant has no locus standi to file the revocation application. It is argued that Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act cannot be invoked by any individual, who does not have any right in the estate of the deceased. It is submitted that the revocation petition has been filed with a view to pressurise the respondents for not filing the suit for possession against the applicant. In his rebuttal argument, the Counsel of applicant has submitted that the probate/ letter of administer has been obtained by the respondents by playing fraud on the court on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and, therefore, the revocation petition even at the insance of a stranger is maintainable. In support of his argument, the learned Counsel has relied on the case of N. Natarajan vs. B.K. Subba Rao, AIR 2003 SC 541. It has also been submitted that the respondents are negotiating the deal for the disposal of the property, which is subject matter of the forged and fabricated Will on the basis of letter of administration obtained from the court and, therefore, the respondents be restrained from disposing of the property, otherwise, the petition would be rendered infructuous giving rise to multiplicity of litigation.
2. The grant of probate or letter of administration may be revoked or annuled for just cause. Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act provides the ground upon which the probate/ letter of administration once granted can be revoked. In the case of Smt. Sima Rani Mohanti Vs. Puspa Rani Pal AIR 1978 Calcutta 140, it has (MPC No.21/07) (Seema Nagpal vs. Anchal Jolly & Ors.) : 3: been 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. Whether revocation will be granted or not is a different matter, for it would depend on the applicant's proving the Will, which has been probated, to be not genuine etc. On the question of locus standi, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court has held in the case of Sadananda Pyne Vs. Harinam Sha and another, AIR 1950 Calcutta 179 that in order to have the locus standi to apply for revocation of probate, a person must have an interest in the estate of the deceased, supposing he had died intestate. On the same issue, the Delhi High Court in the case of Dharam Devi & Ors. Vs. Bishamber Nath, ILR (1971) II Delhi 661, held as under:-
"Succession Act (1925) S. 263-- Revocation of probate -- appellants neither legal heirs of testator nor claiming any right in the property bequeathed under the Will -- appellants have no locus standi to ask for revocation of probate.
HELD, (on facts) that the appellants in the instant case are not the legal heirs of the testator and have no interest in the property bequeathed under the Will. They have, therefore, no locus standi to ask for the revocation of the probate granted to the respondent."
3. Admittedly, the applicant is not the natural legal heir of the deceased. Admittedly, she was only a tenant under the deceased. (MPC No.21/07) (Seema Nagpal vs. Anchal Jolly & Ors.) : 4: Therefore, she has no interest in the property bequeathed under the Will and has prima facie no locus standi to ask for revocation of the grant of probate/ letter of administration in favour of the respondents. The authority cited by the learned Counsel of applicant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In my view, the applicant does not have a prima facie good case in her favour. The application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC is, therefore, dismissed. However, nothing contained in this order shall tantamount to an expression on the merit of the case.
Announced in open (RAVINDER DUDEJA)
Court on 28.4.2008 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:
DELHI.