Delhi District Court
Bhai Analjit Singh vs The State on 11 April, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH : ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
(WEST)02, TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
Probate Case No. 167/10/06
Unique ID Case No. 02401C0445902006
1. Bhai Analjit Singh
S/o Late Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh,
R/o 15, Aurangzeb Road,
New Delhi.
2. Ms. Surender Saini
D/o Late Sh. Amolak Ram Chowdhary
R/o F69, Bhagat Singh Market,
New Delhi110001
3. Sh. B.B. Sawhney
S/o late Sh. R.L. Sawhney
R/o B73, Sector40,
Noida
4. Mr. Amoolya Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Peare Lal Sharma
R/o 3545, Bazar Sitaram,
Delhi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State
2. Smt. Nimmi Parvinder Singh
W/o Late Dr. Parvinder Singh
P C No. 167/10/06 1/20
2
3. Mr. Malvinder Mohan Singh
S/o Late Dr. Parvinder Singh
4. Mr. Shivinder Mohan Singh
S/o Late Dr. Parvinder Singh
All resident of :
1, South End Lane,
New Delhi110011
5. Bhai Manjit Singh
S/o Late Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh
R/o 28A, Prithvi Raj Road,
New Delhi ... Respondents
Date of institution of the case 23.05.2006
Date on which, judgment have been reserved 29.03.2014
Date of pronouncement of judgment 11.04.2014
JUDGMENT:
The present petition u/s 276 of Indian Succession Act for grant of Probate in respect of the Will dated 24.8.2005 of late Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh has been filed on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts as made out from the petition are that Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh was permanent resident of 15, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi and he expired on 27.3.2006. It is further stated that Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh was a Hindu and his parents made him espouse Sikhism and he remained a Sikh during his life time. It is stated that Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh executed his last Will and testament on 24.8.2005 P C No. 167/10/06 2/20 3 and the said Will was duly executed by deceased Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh in the presence of Dr. Prem Sobti and Mr. Vipin Malik, who also appended their signatures thereto as attesting witnesses and at the time of executing his Will, photographs were also taken. It is stated that on 24.8.2005, the deceased intimated the petitioners/ executors of his having made the said Will vide his letter dated 27.08.2005 and further that he had appointed them as executors and had kept the said Will in a sealed cover with Mr. M.M. Sabharwal. It is further stated that thereafter in mid November, 2006, he called for the Will from Mr. M.M. Sabharwal so as to get the same registered and the same was accordingly registered by and with the Sub Registrar of Assurances III, New Delhi at the residence of testator on 18.11.2005. It is stated that since Dr. Prem Sobti could not be present on that day on account of his illhealth, Dr. Sandeep Budhiraja was requested to be present for registration of the Will and he at the request of Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh, appended his signatures as an additional attesting witness after Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh personally acknowledged his signatures on the documents to be registered to Dr. Sandeep Budhiraja stating that it was his last Will and testament and at that time also, photographs were taken. It is further stated that the Will was returned after registration to Mr. M.M. Sabharwal in a sealed cover and after demise of testator Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh, Sh.M.M. Sabharwal personally handed over the said Will dated 24.08.2005, to the petitioner no.1 in the presence of petitioner nos. 3 & 4 on 29.3.3006. It is stated that the petitioners herein have been expressly named in Clause9 of the Will as four executors and the particulars of the assets and properties of the testator Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh which are likely to come to the hands of the petitioners as executors P C No. 167/10/06 3/20 4 are set out in schedule of properties annexed with the petition. It is stated that besides properties mentioned in Annexure P3, the deceased also had an immovable property situated at Chandigarh, however the present petition is being confined to the properties situated within the jurisdiction of this court. It is further stated that the above said Will dated 24.08.2005 was the last and final Will of testator Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh, who had left behind the ClassI heir namely Ms. Nimmi Parvinder Singh, Mr. Malvinder Mohan Singh, Mr. Shivender Mohan Singh, Bhai Manjit Singh and Bhai Analjit Singh. It is also stated that the petitioners, being the Executors under the said Will of Late Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh are desirous of obtaining the probate in order to implement the last wishes of Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh and it has been prayed that probate of Will dated 24.08.2005 registered on 18.11.2005 executed by late Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh may be granted in favour of the petitioners.
3. Upon filing of the present petition, the notices of the same were issued to respondents and accordingly the respondents entered their appearance.
Citation for general public was also ordered to be got published in the newspaper 'Nav Bharat Times', 'Hindustan (Hindi), 'Hindustan Times' and 'Times of India' accordingly, the said citations were published in the above said newspapers on 28.05.2006.
It is pertinent to mention that the value of the property in question has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 3,41,71,825/ by the Executive Magistrate/ Tehsildar, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. Further, the value of the four additional items in the P C No. 167/10/06 4/20 5 amended Schedule at S. No. (ii) to (iv) under caption 'Residual Assets' comes to Rs. 37,86,283.93 ( rounded of as Rs. 37,86,284/). Thus, the total value of the assets left behind by the deceased Testator comes to Rs. 3,79,58,109/.
4. Respondent nos.2 to 4 have filed their NOC, wherein they have admitted the execution and validity of last Will dated 24.08.2005 of deceased Dr.Bhai Mohan Singh and have also stated that they have no objection, if the Probate is granted to the petitioners, of the aforesaid last Will of the deceased.
5. Respondent no.5 contested the present petition and filed his Objections, wherein it has been stated that the present petition was not maintainable as the petitioners themselves have stated that deceased also had an immovable property bearing no. 9, Sector4, Chandigarh but the present petition is confined to the property situated within the jurisdiction of this Court and the same is impermissible in law. It is further stated that the present petition restricted to a part of the estate is not maintainable as such practice of seeking probate of the Will restricted to a part of the estate is detrimental to the interest of the revenue and all persons having objections to the Will and who have interest in the estate of the deceased. It is stated that late Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh, the wife of the deceased, also had 1/10th share in the property no. 23, CuffeParad, Colaba, Mumbai and 1/10th share in property known as Waldorf Hotel, Colaba Causeway, Mumbai and deceased claimed to have inherited the estate of late Avtar Mohan Singh. It is further stated that present petition is signed and verified or is supported by the affidavits of petitioner nos. 2 & P C No. 167/10/06 5/20 6 3, however, the petitioner no.1 alone has been dealing with the respondents and with other persons as the executor under the alleged Will of the deceased. The petitioner nos. 2 & 3 did not come forward in the past to act as executor and as such, it is denied that the petition is signed and verified or is supported by the affidavits of petitioner nos. 2 & 3, who are even otherwise, close confidants and are in collusion with the petitioner no.1. In reply on merits, it is admitted that late Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh had left for his heavenly abode on 27.3.2006 and that he had his permanent resident at 15, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. It is further admitted that late Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh was Hindu by birth, but Sikh by religion. It is stated that deceased did not execute any Will and the question therefore of appointing any person as Executor does not arise. It is further stated that the contents of the Will itself shows that the deceased was not in a fit state of mind and was acting under the undue influence of petitioner no.1. It is stated that various differences with respect to the management and control of various assets had arisen amongst the family members and entire family felt that such dispute, litigation etc between the members of the family would affect and retard the growth and progress of the family controlled companies and in future may hamper peace, harmony, owner, prestige and properties of members of the family and in order to resolve such differences and to avoid any future dispute and differences, a memorandum of family settlement was executed on 30.12.1989 and the said family settlement was accepted and duly acted upon by all the parties and the said family settlement had attained finality. All other averments made in the petition have also been denied on behalf of the respondent no.5 and it has been prayed that the present petition filed on behalf of the petitioners may be dismissed. P C No. 167/10/06 6/20 7
6. Reply to the above said objections of the respondent no.5 have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, wherein the contents of the aforesaid Objections have been denied as incorrect and those of the petition have been reiterated as correct.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 01.05.2007 by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
ISSUES :
1 Whether Will dated 24.8.2005 of Sh. Mohan Singh is proper and valid? OPP 2 Whether the Will dated 24.08.2005 of Sh. Mohan Singh is forged and fabricated ? OPR5 3 Whether the petitioners are entitled to the grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 24.08.2005 of Sh. Mohan Singh? OPP 4 Relief.
8. In their PE, the petitioners have examined PW1 Dr. Prem Sobti, PW2 Bhai Analjit Singh, PW3 Sh. Vipin Malik and PW4 Dr. Sandeep Budhiraja.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that only contesting respondent in this case was respondent no.5, however during the pendency of the case, the said respondent no.5 compromised the present matter with the petitioner amicably.
In this regard, the statement of Sh. Anil Airi, Ld. counsel for the P C No. 167/10/06 7/20 8 respondent no.5 was recorded in the court on 30.4.2012 which reads as under :
"I am the counsel for respondent no.5 Bhai Manjeet Singh in this petition. I have the instructions to state that the respondent no.5 have compromised the present matter with the petitioner amicably. An application for withdrawal of objections has been moved on behalf of respondent no.5 and the said application is Ex. R5/1 and it bears the signature of respondent no.5 Bhai Manjeet Singh at pointA. The said application is also accompanied by an affidavit of Bhai Manjeet Singh and the said affidavit is Ex. R5/2 and it bears his signatures at pointA & B. The present application is also accompanied by an 'affidavit of no objection' on behalf of respondent no.5 Bhai Manjeet Singh and the said 'affidavit of no objection' is Ex. R5/3 and it also bears his signatures at pointA & B. It is prayed that the objection petition dated 09.10.2006 filed on behalf of respondent no.5 may be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the aforesaid application Ex. R5/1".
10. I have heard the arguments put forward by Ld. counsel for the petitioners and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners.
11. The findings on the issues are as under :
12. Issue no. 2:
The onus to prove issue no.2 was upon respondent no.5, however no evidence whatsoever have been led by the respondent no.5 in this case, to discharge P C No. 167/10/06 8/20 9 the said onus. In fact, the perusal of the record reveals that during the pendency of the instant case, a statement was made on behalf of respondent no.5 by his counsel, wherein it has been stated that the said respondent no.5 have compromised the present matter with the petitioner amicably and in lieu of the said compromise the objection petition dated 09.10.2006 filed on behalf of respondent no.5 was withdrawn by the said respondent. In addition to this, an 'affidavit of no objection' ( Ex. R5/3) has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no.5 Bhai Manjeet Singh, wherein it has been stated that he admit that the Will dated 24.8.2005 registered on 18.11.2005 is the validly executed last Will of the deceased Dr. Bhai Mohan Sngh and that he has no objection to the grant of probate of the aforesaid last Will of the deceased to the executors named therein.
Hence, in view of the above, the issue no.2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent no.5.
13. Issue nos. 1 & 3 :
Issue nos. 1 & 3 are being taken up together as both these issues are interconnected and have to be decided on the basis of the same evidence.
The onus to prove the issue nos. 1 & 3 was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus as well as to prove the above said Will dated 24.08.2005 on record, the petitioners have examined PW1 Dr. Prem Sobti , who was one of the attesting witness to the said Will.
PW1 Dr. Prem Sobti, has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PA), wherein it has been stated that the testator Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh was his close, P C No. 167/10/06 9/20 10 dear and trusted life long friend and in the mid of 2005, Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh told him that he had decided to make his Will and also decided that he should be one of the attesting witnesses and sought his willingness to be so and he naturally willingly agreed and in fact felt honored to act such. PW1 further deposed that after the Will had been drawn up, Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh after seeking his convenience as to the date and time for execution thereof, requested him to come to his residence on 24.08.2005 at about 12:00 Noon for witnessing the execution of his Will and accordingly he went to his residence and one Mr. Vipin Malik, Chartered Accountant was also present. PW1 deposed that he has seen the original Will dated 24.08.2005 and at first the testator Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh appended his signatures at the foot of the typed text of each of the pages 1 to 14 of the Will and on page 15 middle right hand side at the space meant for signature of the testator in the presence of Mr. Vipin Malik and him. PW1 deposed that he identifies his signatures at the said points which are marked at point A1 to A15 and thereafter Mr. Vipin Malik and he signed the same as attesting witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. He also identifies his signatures at page 15 of the Will as attesting witness at S. No. 1. PW1 has proved the above said original Will as Ex. PW2/1. PW1 further deposed that photographs of the occasion of execution of the Will were taken with a digital camera and he has proved the said photographs as Ex. PW2/2 to Ex. PW2/14. PW1 deposed that to evidence the date execution of the Will, they had got some of the photographs taken displaying front pages of the newspapers Economic Times and the Tribune. PW1 also deposed that in the mid November, 2005, Mr. G. L. Ahuja, a staff member of Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh P C No. 167/10/06 10/20 11 telephoned him to state that Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh wanted to get the Will registered and desired his presence for the purpose on 18th November, 2005, however he was unable to be present on account of his being ill and on complete bed rest for a week.
The important fact is that this witness i.e PW1 Dr. Prem Sobti has been cross examined on behalf of the objector/respondent no. 5, however nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness. In his cross examination on behalf of objector/ respondent no. 5, the PW1 denied the suggestion that Bhai Mohan Singh could not read without magnifying glass or that he was given blood transfusion due to severe anemia . PW1 further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of petitioner Bhai Analjit Singh. PW1 also denied the suggestion that no Will was executed in his presence or in the presence of the other witnesses or that the same was not signed by Bhai Mohan Singh in his presence. It is pertinent to note here that the cross examination of PW1 conducted on behalf of objector/respondent no.5 is not of much relevance in this case as during the pendency of the present petition, a statement was made on behalf of respondent no.5 by his counsel , wherein it has been stated that the said respondent no.5 have compromised the present matter with the petitioner amicably. Further, an 'affidavit of no objection' ( Ex. R5/3) has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no.5 Bhai Manjeet Singh, wherein it has been stated that he admit that the Will dated 24.8.2005 registered on 18.11.2005 is the validly executed last Will of the deceased Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh. P C No. 167/10/06 11/20 12
14. In order to corroborate the evidence of PW1 Dr. Prem Sobti and in order to prove the Will dated 24.8.2005 of testator Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh on record, the petitioners have also examined PW3 Mr. Vipin Malik & PW4 Dr. Sandeep Budhi Raja.
PW3 Mr. Vipin Malik has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A), wherein it has been stated that testator Bhai Mohan Singh was his close friend for long years and he was a man of high intellect, entrepreneurship, cultured pleasing personality and endearing humility. PW3 deposed that in mid August, 2005, Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh told him that he had decided to make his Will and also decided that he should be one of the attesting witnesses and sought confirmation of his willingness to be so and he naturally willingly agreed to do so. It is pertinent to note that most of the contents of the affidavit (Ex. PW3/A) of PW3 Sh. Vipin Malik are almost on the similar lines as that of affidavit (Ex. PA) of PW1 Dr. Prem Sobti.
PW4 Dr. Sandeep Budhiraja has also filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW4/A), wherein it has been stated that he had known Bhai Mohan Singh much earlier and he first personally met him in 2001 at his residence when he called him for a routine checkup. PW4 further deposed that he was a doctor with specialization in internal medicine and from about 2001 onwards, he was personally in charge as physician of medical needs and requirements of Bhai Mohan Singh and got to know him closely. PW4 deposed that on the morning of 18.12.2005, he received a telephonic request from Bhai Mohan Singh to come to his residence around 3:00 P.M for the purpose of registration of his Will and accordingly he went P C No. 167/10/06 12/20 13 to his residence where his friend Mr. Vipin Malik was also there and after a short while a gentleman who was introduced as Sub Registrar came accompanied by two others. PW4 further deposed that Bhai Mohan Singh showed him his Will (Ex. PW2/1) and acknowledged to him his signatures at the foot of the first 14 pages thereof and on the right hand middle of the last page meant for signatures of the testator and he requested him to append his signatures as additional attesting witness below the signatures of Mr. Vipin Malik, which he did and thereafter Dr. Sandeep Budhiraja and Mr. Vipin Malik were asked to append their signatures and thumb impressions on the flip side of the first page of the Will which they did and the Will was thereafter registered. PW4 deposed that photographs of the occasion of the registration of the Will were taken by with a digital camera and he has proved the prints of the said photographs as Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/20. PW4 deposed that daily newspapers the Economic Times, the Tribune and the Indian Express editions of that day were also displayed in some of the photographs to evidence the date of registration which are already exhibited as Ex. PW3/21 to Ex. PW3/23.
The important fact is that both these witnesses PW3 and PW4 have not been cross examined on behalf of objector/respondent no.5 as by the time both these witnesses were examined during the trial of this case, the objector / respondent no.5 has already compromised the present matter with the petitioners and has filed an 'affidavit of no objection' ( Ex. R5/3), wherein it has been stated that he admit that the Will dated 24.8.2005 registered on 18.11.2005 is the validly executed last Will of the deceased Dr. Bhai Mohan Sngh.
P C No. 167/10/06 13/20 14
15. The case of the petitioners have also been supported by PW2 Bhai Analjit Singh, who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. P2), wherein he stated that he was the petitioner no.1 in the instant probate case and also the youngest of the three sons of the testator late Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh. PW2 further deposed that his respected father was an outstanding and exceptional human being secular, statesman like and above all entrepreneur and was the founder of Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh Group of companies/entities. PW2 deposed that his father was highly intelligent, possessed of foresight and vision couple with unshakable determination. PW2 further deposed that Dr. Parvinder Singh was the eldest of them three brothers and unfortunately relations between the eldest brother Dr. Parvinder Singh and their father remained strained from 199192 onwards and their father felt that after the family settlement in 198990 and gaining controlling interest and day to day management of the flagship family company Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (RLL) and its related companies/entities, Dr. Parvinder Singh had designedly created a situation in RLL wherein their father was sidelined, deeply humiliated and this led to arbitration proceedings followed by prolonged litigation which outlasted the lifetime of Dr. Parvinder Singh and their respected father contacted heart disease and his brother died prematurely at a young age of 5455 years. PW2 deposed that the objector Bhai Manjit Singh is the middle brother and he was allotted controlling, interest and management of Montari Industries Limited (MIL) and its related companies/entities under and pursuant to the said family settlement. PW2 further deposed that while the RLL and Max groups flourished and grew from strength to strength, the MIL Group through mismanagement and money squandering, took a P C No. 167/10/06 14/20 15 downturn and its assets and net worth got progressively eroded bringing about a situation of financial crisis. PW2 deposed that Bhai Manjit Singh kept making repeated entreaties to their respected father for funds from time to time and for several years their father, out of parental sympathy and compassion, kept responding to such entreaties and advanced funds aggregating over Rs.14 crores to Bhai Manjit Singh and tried to bail him out over the years. PW2 further deposed that their father's parental sympathy and compensation got progressively eroded, leading to his being completely disillusioned with Bhai Manjit Singh by about the end of the year 2003. PW2 deposed that being their youngest son, he was always close to his parents and before and after his marriage, he lived with his parents in the same house and in the last few years of their lives, when they began to suffer from physical infirmities and debilities of old age, he and his family members took all required steps to provide them support and take care of their medical as also emotional needs and requirements both at home and at Max Healthcare. PW2 further deposed that on 27.8.2005, his father wrote to the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 and to him that he had made his Will on 24.8.2005 and kept it in sealed cover with Mr. M.M. Sabharwal, his close friend for 3 to 4 decades and he has proved the said letter delivered to him as Ex. PW3/1. PW2 deposed that his father left for his heavenly abode on 27.03.2006 and Mr. M.M. Sabharwal telephoned him to say that he desired the presence of the executors of the Will at 15, Aurangzeb Road on 29.3.2006 at about 4:00 P.M and he informed his coexecutors accordingly. PW2 further deposed that on 29.3.2006 when Mr. M.M. Sabharwal called at 15, Aurangzeb Road and handed over the sealed cover containing the Will of his father P C No. 167/10/06 15/20 16 to him in the presence of the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 and Kumari Surender Saini also arrived a few minutes later and he and his coexecutors endorsed their signatures on letter dated 21.11.2005 addressed by his father to Mr. M.M. Sabharwal. PW2 further deposed that Antim Ardas ceremony was held on 31.03.2006 and immediately thereafter, the Will was disclosed to the respondent nos. 2 to 5 by the petitioner no.3 who supplied copies of the Will to them. PW2 also deposed that bulk of the estate has been bequeathed by his father to and in favour of Bhai Mohan Singh Foundation which is a public charitable trust founded in mid2004 for fulfillment of his long cherished unfulfilled desire of setting up such a foundation by his name.
In his additional evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), PW2 Bhai Analjit Singh deposed that his father expired on 27.3.2006 and at the time of his death, he was ordinarily resident of the Delhi and he has proved his death certificate as Ex. PW2/X. PW2 further deposed that his father during his lifetime executed a Will dated 24.08.2005 and kept same in a sealed cover with Mr. M.M. Sabharwal, a close friend of his father for about 34 decades. PW2 further deposed that he was the Chairman of the Bhai Mohan Singh Foundation and one of the executors of the Will and the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are coexecutors of the said Will. PW2 deposed that his respected father Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh was in sound and disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will (Ex. PW2/1) and he has proved the amended schedule of the properties of the testator as Ex. PW2/2. PW2 also deposed that the contents of the petition for grant of probate in favour of the petitioners/executors of the Will dated 24.08.2005 are true and correct.
P C No. 167/10/06 16/20 17
At the time of filing of his initial evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. P2), this witness i.e PW2 Bhai Analjit Singh was cross examined on behalf of objector/ respondent no.5, however, the cross examination of this witness i.e PW2 conducted on behalf of objector/respondent no.5 is not of much relevance in this case as during the pendency of the present petition, a statement was made on behalf of respondent no.5 by his counsel , wherein it has been stated that the said respondent no.5 have compromised the present matter with the petitioner amicably and in lieu of the said compromise the objection petition dated 09.10.2006 filed on behalf of respondent no.5 was withdrawn by the said respondent. Further, an 'affidavit of no objection' ( Ex. R5/3) has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no.5 Bhai Manjeet Singh, wherein it has been stated that he admit that the Will dated 24.8.2005 registered on 18.11.2005 is the validly executed last Will of the deceased Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh and that he has no objection to the grant of probate of the aforesaid last Will of the deceased to the executors named therein.
16. In the present case, although objection petition filed on behalf of objector/respondent no.5 have been withdrawn by the said objector/respondent, however therein an objection has been taken qua the maintainability of the present petition as one of the properties of the deceased was situated at Chandigarh and it will be expedient in the interest of justice to deal with the said objection.
In this regard, it is pertinent to note here that although the deceased also had immovable property situated at Chandigarh, however the present petition has P C No. 167/10/06 17/20 18 been confined by the petitioners only to the properties situated within the jurisdiction of this court. Even otherwise, from the harmonious construction of sections 270, 271, 273 and 300 of the Indian Succession Act, it is clear that section 273 has nothing to do with the jurisdiction and it only deals with the binding force or effect of the letters of administration and probate issued by a High Court or District Judge as has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case cited as AIR 1985 Delhi 453:
In the aforesaid case titled as 'Smt. Kanta Vs. State and Anr. ( cited as AIR 1985 Delhi 453)', it has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi : " Section 273 of the Act does not deal with the jurisdiction of the High Court or the District Judge, to entertain and decide a petition for grant of letters of administration or probate. That provision only deals with the effect and binding force of grant of letters of administration or probate by the High Court or the District Judge. It has nothing to do with the territorial jurisdiction. The territorial jurisdiction is dealt with by section 270, 271 and 300 of the Act which have been referred to already. Had the intention of the legislature been that section 273 of the Act would deal with the territorial jurisdiction also, there was hardly any necessity of enacting sections 270, 271 and 300 of the Act Therefore, on harmonious construction of sections 270, 271, 273 and 300 of the Act. it is clear that section 273 has nothing to do with the territorial jurisdiction and it only deals with the binding force or effect of the letters of administration and probate issued by a High Court or District Judge. "
P C No. 167/10/06 18/20 19
Further, in the case titled as ' Mary Assumption Trinidade etc. Vs. Vincent Manuel Trinidade & Ors. ( cited as MANU/DE/0225/1975)', it has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi : " That the only effect of the Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act is that where the grant is made in accordance with the main Section, its effect is confined to the estate within the limits of the State where the grant is made. The proviso to the Section , however, extends the scope of the grant beyond the limit of the State, if either of the two conditions referred to in the proviso and satisfied. It is not possible to spell out of the said provisions any demarcation of the jurisdiction of the District Judge or any limitation on it. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the District Judge being unchallenged in so far as the estate within his jurisdiction was concerned , the grant as a whole would not be vitiated even though its effect would be confined in terms of the provision of Section 273 (b) to the estate within his jurisdiction and to that extent, at the most, it may perhaps be said that the grant, in so far it is related to the estate outside the jurisdiction, was of no effect and, Therefore, in that sense without jurisdiction."
17. Hence, in view of the above and in view of the testimonies of PW1 to PW4, it is evident that Will dated 24.8.2005 (Ex. PW2/1) of the deceased Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh has been proved on record in accordance with law by the petitioners and it has also been duly proved that the said Will dated 24.8.2005 (Ex. PW2/1) was executed by deceased Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh and that it was his last, genuine, valid and duly executed Will.
P C No. 167/10/06 19/20 20
It is pertinent to note that petitioners herein have been named as Executors in the above said Will dated 24.8.2005 (Ex. PW2/1) and as such they are entitled to the grant of probate in accordance with the provisions of Section222 of Indian Succession Act, which provides that probate shall be granted only to an Executor appointed by the Will.
Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations, the issue nos.1 & 3 are decided in favour of the petitioners.
18. RELIEF In view of the above findings on the aforesaid issues nos. 1 to 3, the probate in respect of the Will dated 24.8.2005 (Ex. PW2/1) of deceased Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh be issued in favour of the petitioners herein after obtaining requisite Court Fee and Administration bond for a sum of Rs.3,79,58,109/ with one surety of like amount. Further, the petitioners are directed to file the inventory of immovable property within six months and final statement of account within one year from the date of receipt of the formal probate.
It is further clarified that question of title, share and ownership of property/assets mentioned in the abovesaid Will is not decided by this court.
File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(court on 11.4.2014) ADJ02 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
11.4.2014
P C No. 167/10/06 20/20
21
P C No. 167/10/06 21/20
22
PC No.167/10/06
11.4.2014
Present: None.
Vide separate judgment, announced in the open court, the present petition for the grant of probate, filed on behalf of the petitioner, has been disposed of.
File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(court on 11.4.2014) ADJ02 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
11.4.2014
P C No. 167/10/06 22/20
23
P C No. 167/10/06 23/20
24
In the case titled as 'Smt. Kanta Vs. State and Anr. ( cited as AIR 1985 Delhi
453)', it has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi : " But the aforesaid contention has obviously no force. Section 273 of the Act does not deal with the jurisdiction of the High Court or the District Judge, to entertain and decide a petition for grant of letters of administration or probate. That provision only deals with the effect and binding force of grant of letters of administration or probate by the High Court or the District Judge. It has nothing to do with the territorial jurisdiction. The territorial jurisdiction is dealt with by section 270, 271 and 300 of the Act which have been referred to already. Had the intention of the legislature been that section 273 of the Act would deal with the territorial jurisdiction also, there was hardly any necessity of enacting sections 270, 271 and 300 of the Act Therefore, on harmonious construction of sectlls 270, 271, 273 and 300 of the Act it is clear that section 273 has nothing to do with the territorial jurisdiction and it only de3als with the binding force or effect of the letters of administration and probate issued by a High Court or District Judge. "
Further, in the case titled as ' Mary Assumption Trinidade etc. Vs. Vincent Manuel Trinidade & Ors. ( cited as MANU/DE/0225/1975)', it has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi : " That the only effect of the Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act is that where the grant is made in accordance with the main Section, its P C No. 167/10/06 24/20 25 effect is confined to the estate within the limits of the State where the grant is made. The proviso to the Section , however, extends the scope of the grant beyond the limit of the States, if either of the two conditions referred to in the proviso and satisfied. It is not possible to spell out of the said provisions any demarcation of the jurisdiction of the District Judge or any limitation on it. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the District Judge being unchallanged in so far as the estate within his jurisdiction was concerned , the grant as a whole would not be vitiated even though its effect would be confined in terms of the provision of Section 273 (b) to the estate within his jurisdiction and to that extent, at the most, it may perhaps be said that the grant, in so far it is related to the estate outside the jurisdiction, was of no effect and, Therefore, in that sense without jurisdiction."
P C No. 167/10/06 25/20