Delhi District Court
Sh. Pramod Kumar Goel vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 28 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAXMI KANT GAUR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
P.C. NO. 05 of 2019
1. Sh. Pramod Kumar Goel
S/o Late Ved Prakash Goel
R/o B:178, Sector 44, Noida (U.P.)
2. Vinod Kumar Goel
S/o Late Ved Prakash Goel
R/o B:178, Sector 44, Noida (U.P.)
3. Vivek Kumar Goel
S/o Late Ved Prakash Goel
R/o B:178, Sector 44, Noida (U.P.)
4. Chanchal Gupta
W/o Late Shri Rakesh Gupta
R/o 16B, Ram Kishore Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi.
5. Sangeeta Mittal
W/o Shri Atul Mittal
R/o 2325 Hudson Lines,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi. ...........Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) .........Respondent
PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 1 of 16
Date of filing of the petition : 19.01.2019
Date of reserving the judgment : 08.08.2019
Date of judgment : 28.08.2019
Petition under Section 276 of The Succession Act for
grant of probate of the last and final Will dated 09.09.2013
executed by Late Ved Prakash Goel
JUDGMENT
1. By this order I propose to decide the Petition filed under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for seeking probate of a Will dated 09.09.2013, executed by one Late Ved Prakash Goel s/o Late Sh. Durga Prasad (hereinafter referred to as Testator) interalia expressing his desire to distribute his movable and immovable properties in the following manner : "That the immovable properties owned by me shall bequeath and devolve on my sons as under :
(a) ½ Share in property No.1760, Nai Basti, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi, shall exclusively belong to my eldest son Sh. Pramod Kumar Goel.
(b) Property at 898900, behind Novelty Cinema, Delih shall exclusively belong to my son Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel.
PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 2 of 16
(c) ½ Share in property at 3A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi shall exclusively belong to my younger son Sh. Vivek Kumar Goel.
(d) ½ Share in property at 205859, Katra Tobacco, Khari Baoli, Delhi shall exclusively belong to my eldest son Sh. Pramod Kumar Goel.
(e) Property at 545, Katra Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi, shall belong and be owned equally by Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel and Sh. Vivek Goel equally.
(f) Property at 542544, Khari Baoli, Dellhi, property 543 being common stair case for property No.542&544, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi, shall belong and be owned by Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel & Sh. Vivek Kumar Goel in equal share.
As far as my capital is lying to the credit of my account with M/s Durga Prasad & Co. and M/s Banwari Lal Ved Prakash is concerned, I direct that it is to be distributed in the following manner : (1) Banwari Lal Ved Prakash Ms. Sonal Goel Rs. 5 Lacs (Daughter of my son Vivek Kumar Goel) Smt. Anupama Goel Rs.5 Lacs (Daughter of my son Vivek Kumar Goel) PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 3 of 16 Ms. Parnika Goel Rs.5 Lacs (Daughter of my grandson Ankit Goel) Ms. Arshi Goel Rs.5 Lacs (Daughter of my grandson Nikhil Goel) (2) Durga Prasad & Co.
Ms. Vibhuti Goel Rs.10 Lacs (Daughter of my son Pramod Kumar Goel) Rest of the Capital to be divided equally among my sons Sh. Pramod Kumar Goel, Vinod Kumar Goel and Vivek Kumar Goel.
That so far as my shares in DMAT A/c in joint names with my sons is concerned I bequeath that the same shall be held by respective joint DMAT A/c holder.
That so far as shares which aer inherited by me, I bequeath that all the shares mentioned in the list and the shares lying physically which are in joint name with any one of my sons shall go to the respective joint holder and rest to my youngest son Sh. Vivek Kumar Goel.
That I am Karta of Ved Prakash Goel (HUF). The said HUF is maintaining savings account with Andhra Bank in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, A/c No.SB/01/00004795 and is operated by me as Karta. I say that after my death my eldest PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 4 of 16 son Sh. Pramod Kumar Goel shall be the Karta of my HUF and do all the acts of Karta. The said account shall be operated by Sh. Pramod Kumar Goel as Karta after my death.
To the best of my knowledge I have no liability. If any liability is found payable after my death he same shall be borne and discharged by my three sons in equal share.
That any other asset that I may die possessed of and not mentioned above shall be divided equally amongst my three sons Sh.
Pramod Kumar Goel, Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel & Sh. Vivek Kumar Goel in equal share."
Introduction of the Parties
2. Pramod Kumar Goel, (Petitioner No.1) is the eldest son of the testator and the executor of the Will; Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel and Sh. Vivek Kumar Goel (Petitioners No.2 and 3) are the younger sons of the testator and Ms. Chanchal Gupta and Ms. Sangeeta Mittal (Petitioner no.4 and 5) are the daughters of the testator. Publication for citation
3. After the Petition had been filed, Court had directed publication of PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 5 of 16 citations as is required under section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, to general public to be published in two newspapers one "Indian Express" and the other " Veer Arjun/Jansatta" and also the said citation to be published by being displayed on the notice board of the Court and also at some prominent place in the office of the District Collector and/Concerned SDM.
4. No one had appeared from general public to oppose the Petition. Valuation of the Property
5. According to the valuation submitted by the office of the concerned SDMs, valuation of the immovable properties were given as under :
Sl. Description of property Valuation
No. Amount
1. 3A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi110007. Rs.4,85,38,972/
2. 1760, Nai Basti, Delhi Rs.1,59,02,716.8/
3. ½ Share in property 205859, Katra Rs.73,69,173/ Tobbaco, Khari Baoli, Delhi
4. Property No.545, consistory of shop on Rs.1,854,66,718/ G.F., F.F. & Second Floor, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi
5. 1st Floor and above in property no.544, Rs.1,45,81,156/ Khari Baoli, Delhi, property no.543 being common stair case for property no.542&544.
PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 6 of 16 Examination of witnesses
6. Petitioner No.1 had examined himself as PW1. He had filed his affidavit in evidence on the lines of Petition. He had referred to in his testimony original Will executed by the testator Late Sh. Ved Prakash Goel Ex PW1/1, Death Certificates of his father and mother and Ex PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 respectively.
7. PW2 Sh. Ram Kishan Sharma is one of the witnesses of the Will. He identified his signature on the Will at point A. The relevant part of his testimony is reproduced as under : I had signed this Will on 09.09.2013 in the office of Sh. B.K. Gupta, Chartered Accountant. At that time, I was there and my Bauji i.e. Sh. Ved Prakash Goel was there and also the other witness Sh. Ramesh Kumar. I know Sh. Ved Prakash Goel as my father used to work with him. Sh. Ramesh Kumar had also been working with Sh. Ved Prakash Goel in Katra Ishwar Bhawan. Sh. Ved Prakash Goel and Sh. Ramesh Kumar had also signed his Will in my presence."
Hearing the submission
8. I have gone through the record and have heard counsel for the PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 7 of 16 petitioners.
Discussion & Findings Verification of Petition by one of the attesting witnesses
9. It is a matter of record that in the present case, petition has not been signed or verified by one of the attesting witnesses, as is required u/s 281 of the Indian Succession Act
10. In any case, it has been held to be a curable defect by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sh. Kulbir Singh Vs. State & Others 1993 (27) DRJ and thus not fatal.
Petition has been signed by those who do not claim Probate/Letters of Administration - No Objections by Legal Heirs of Testator impleded as Petitioners No.3 to 5.
11.This has to do with the form of the Petition. Even those who do not claim for being granted Probate have been joined as Petitioners, which is not the correct thing to do.
12.I am of the view, at the same time, Petitioners cannot be blamed for it. If it can be called an error it is clearly on an advice given to them. Petitioners No.3 to 5 have given their statements in the court that they will have no objection in case probate of the Will is granted in PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 8 of 16 favour of petitioner no.1. Though, petitioner no.2 had not appeared in the court to give his statement but had signed the petition and filed affidavit in support of the petition like the other respondents no.3 to 5 for being granted probate in terms of the Will. Thus it can be inferred that he too does not have any objection in Probate being granted in favour of the Petitioner No.1.
13. Thus, it may be said that there is no objection from any one for the grant of probate in terms of the Will dated 09.09.2013 in favour of Petitioner No.1.
Proving of Will
14. A Will is required to be attested by at least two witnesses according to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act but it is not necessary that both the attesting witnesses be examined as per Section 68 of the Indian Succession Act. Examination of one of the attesting witnesses is good enough for proving the Will.
15.PW2, attesting witness Sh. Ram Kishan Sharma had been examined in the court. He had identified his signatures on the Will and also of that of the Testator and the other witness. He had deposed that the PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 9 of 16 executant (Testator) and the other attesting witness Sh. Ramesh Kumar had put signatures on the Will in his presence.
16.His testimony in my opinion is sufficient to prove the Will dated 09/09/2013 being propounded by the Petitioner No.1. It accordingly stands proved that Testator had executed the Will Ex PW1/1. Probate to be granted in respect of the entire estate as stated in Will
17. In response to certain clarifications asked for by the court regarding the valuation of the various securities, bank accounts which have been referred to in the petition, petitioner no.1 had filed his affidavit stating therein that apart from the immovable properties referred to in the Schedule1 of the Petition, the Probate may be granted only in respect of the bank account bearing no.307302010000340 with Union Bank of India, Branch Khari Baoli, Delhi, of deceased testator Late Sh.Ved Prakash Goel, wherein there is an amount of Rs.48,117.78/ lying deposited.
18.It was laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Re: T.K. Parthasarathi Naidu vs Unknown on (AIR 1955 Mad 411) :
"11. The examination of the cases, therefore, confirm the conclusion we reached on a PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 10 of 16 consideration of the relevant section of the Indian Succession Act, namely, whether the deceased died intestate or died leaving a will appointing or without appointing executors, the probate or the letters of administration with or without the will annexed must, as a general rule, relate to all the properties, that is, the entire estate of the deceased, and that only in exceptional cases falling under Sections 254 to 257, a probate or administration limited to specific item of property or a fraction of the estate will be granted. The question whether a particular case would fall under those exceptions would depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. It is impossible, and we do not propose to make any attempt to prepare a catalogue of cases which would fall within those exceptions. It was only on that question that the decisions differed."
Thus one may say according to the scheme of the Indian Succession Act, Court cannot grant Probate for just a few of the properties and leave out the rest. It is only in some exceptional circumstances it can be done as under Sections 254 to 257 of the Indian Succession Act. What are those circumstances in which such exception can be made was laid down by the Hon'ble High Andhra Pradesh Court in Vrandavanla Goverdhanlal Pitti vs Kamala Bai Goverdhanlal (AIR 1970 AP109) as under:
" It appears to us that the provisions of Chapter PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 11 of 16 II of part IX Sections 237 to 260 which deal with grants limited in duration are only applicable to limited grants and exceptions. Of these, Section 255 allows a limited probate in special circumstances of which the following are some examples.
(i) When the testator makes a grant for a limited purpose.
(ii) when the testator appoints several executors for different purposes.
(iii) When a part of the will is invalid on the ground of fraud; and
(iv) when the will is damaged or mutilated"
19. Thus one may say, that though it has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner no.1 that the Court may confine itself to the granting the Probate in respect of the part of the estate of the testator but that can be done. In the other words probate can only be granted in respect of the entire estate of the Testator as described in the Will. Probate does not confer title to the property of Deceased
20.A Testamentary court is only concerned with finding out whether or PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 12 of 16 not the testator executed the testamentary instrument of his free will. It is settled law that the grant of a Probate or Letters of Administration does not confer title to property. They merely enable administration of the estate of the deceased1. It may therefore be understood by the parties clearly that this Judgment does not confer any title on the Petitioner nor in respect of the Property. No need to file Administrative Bond or Sureties
21.Since in this case, it is the probate which is to be granted in favour of the petitioner No.1 i.e executor of the Will Sh. Pramod Kumar Goel, there will not be any necessity of furnishing any Administrative Bond or Surety Bond. As is clear from Section 291 of the Indian Succession Act that such bonds and sureties are required only in case of Letters of Administration being granted and not Probates. Compliances to be made under section 317 of Indian Succession Act.
22. Petitioners herein would be required to exhibit inventories within six months and one year as is required u/s 317 of the Indian Succession 1 Delhi Development Authority vs Mrs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney & Anr on 26 August, 2003 - [ (2003)7 SCC 301] PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 13 of 16 Act from the date of the issue of the Letters of Administration in the Form No.178 and 179 Vol. 6, Delhi High Court Rules respectively. Valuation under Section 19 -I of the Court Fees Act
23. It may be noted here though the Petitioner no.1 Sh. Pramod Kumar Goel may be held to be entitled for the Probate being the executor of the Will, the same shall, however, be issued only after Petitioner No.1 has filed the valuation of the properties both movable and immovable in the Form as given in Schedule III of the Court Fees and accepted by the Court as is required under section 19I 2 of the Court Fees of the Act and in consequence thereof necessary Court Fee has been filed. One may also make reference to the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in DRA Mountford v. Govt of NCT of Delhi 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8892 in this respect. Relevant part of the Judgment reads as under:
2
[19-I. Payment of Court-fees in respect of probates and letters of administration.
-- (1) No order entitling the petitioner to the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be made upon an application for such grant until the petitioner has filed in the Court a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the Third Schedule, and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No. 11 of the First Schedule has been paid on such valuation.1[19-I. Payment of Court-fees in respect of probates and letters of administration.--
(1) No order entitling the petitioner to the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be made upon an application for such grant until the petitioner has filed in the Court a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the Third Schedule, and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No. 11 of the First Schedule has been paid on such valuation." (2) The grant of probate or letters of administration shall not be delayed by reason of any motion made by the Collector under section 19H, sub-section (4).] PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 14 of 16 "19. Considering the law cited above the question of valuation of assets and payment of the court fee shall arise only once the Will is held to be valid and the Court directs the grant of probate or letter of administration with Will annexed and the final valuation shall be done by the Collector of the area at that time."
Conclusion
24.In view of the foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, I am granting Probate in favour of Petitioner no.1 Sh. Pramod Kumar Goel u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act in respect of the entire estate of the Testator Late Ved Prakash Goel as referred to in the Will. Let the same be issued in favour of the petitioner no.1 Sh. Pramod Kumar Goel on the submission of the valuation of both movable and immovable properties as referred to in the Will in the Form as given in Schedule III of the Court Fees and accepted by the Court as is required under section 19I3 of the Court Fees of the Act 3 [19-I. Payment of Court-fees in respect of probates and letters of administration.
-- (1) No order entitling the petitioner to the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be made upon an application for such grant until the petitioner has filed in the Court a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the Third Schedule, and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No. 11 of the First Schedule has been paid on such valuation.1[19-I. Payment of Court-fees in respect of probates and letters of administration.-- (1) No order entitling the petitioner to the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be made upon an application for such grant until the petitioner has filed in the Court a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the Third Schedule, and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No. 11 of the First Schedule has been paid on such valuation." (2) The grant of probate or letters of administration shall not be delayed by reason of any motion made by the Collector under section 19H, sub-section (4).] PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 15 of 16 and in consequence thereof necessary Court Fee has been filed. He would also be required to exhibit inventory and accounts within six months and one year as discussed above under section 317 of the Indian Succession Act.
25.Ordered accordingly.
26.File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 28th August, 2019 (Laxmi Kant Gaur) Additional District Judge, Central, Delhi PC No.05 of 19 Pramod Kumar Goel vs. State 16 of 16