Delhi District Court
Jai Singh vs State on 9 June, 2025
Jai Singh vs. State
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh
PC NO. 6001/2016
FILING No. 25468/2012
CNR No. DLST01-000681-2012
In the matter of:-
Jai Singh
S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh
R/o V P O Jasaur Kheri,
District Jhajjar,
Haryana. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State
2. Smt. Saraswati Devi
W/o Sh. Jas Ram
R/o B-2/101 Safdurjung Enclave,
New Delhi. ....Respondents
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
18:21:58 +0530
PC No. 6001/2016
Page 1 of 22
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Jai Singh vs. State
Date of Institution : 09.10.2012
Date of reserving the judgment : 02.05.2025
Date of pronouncement : 09.06.2025
Decision : Dismissed
REVOCATION PETITION UNDER SECTION 263 OF
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the revocation petition filed by Sh. Jai Singh under Section 263 for revocation of letters of administration issued by the then Ld. District Judge, Delhi dated 31.10.1985. BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts of the case are that through the present petition, the revocation of Letters of Administration granted in PC no. 191/84 in favour of respondent no. 2 herein (Smt. Saraswati) is sought.
3. It is averred by the revocation petitioner that he is one of the sons of Late Smt. Rupo. Smt. Rupo was the only child of Late Smt. Jhallo Devi. That the revocation respondent no. 2 Smt. Saraswati Devi fraudulently obtained a probate/ letters of administration of the alleged Will dated 12.01.1983 of Late Smt. Jhallo Devi by filing PC no.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
18:22:07 +0530
PC No. 6001/2016
Page 2 of 22
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State 191/1984 by suppressing the material facts. The letters of administration was issued to her on 31.10.1985.
4. It has been further averred that the proceedings of PC no. 191/84 were defective because Late Smt. Rupo (died on 13.10.2011) was not made a necessary party in the proceedings and false suggestions were made and material facts were suppressed as much as it was not disclosed that Smt. Rupo at the time of filing and obtaining the said letters of administration was not residing at 269, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi, at the time when the summons of the said petition were sent.
5. It has been further averred that Smt. Rupo being the natural legal heir of Late Smt. Jhallo Devi had not been served and said fact is blatantly visible in the report dated 10.12.1984 of the process server, who sent the summons of the said case at the address 269, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi wherein it is clearly mentioned that Smt. Rupo was not found. It is also clear from Regd. A/D card sent to Smt. Rupo at the abovesaid address that summons were received by Smt. Asha. Thus making it clear that Smt. Rupo was never served in the probate case as she was not residing at Shahpur Jat.
6. It is further averred that concealment of the aforesaid Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 18:22:14 +0530 PC No. 6001/2016 Page 3 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State fact has been detrimental to the interests of the legal heirs of Late Smt. Rupo, who did not get an opportunity to raise/ file objections in the said case.
7. It is further averred that the Will dated 12.01.1983 is a forged and fabricated document as Sh. Shivji Ram, who was one of the sons of Smt. Rupo, in connivance with Smt. Saraswati Devi, had forged and fabricated the alleged Will dated 12.01.1983 to usurp the property of the deceased Smt. Jhallo Devi and he had given false statement and had deposed falsely before the court to wrongly prove veracity of the alleged Will dated 12.01.1983.
8. It is further averred that vide publication in daily newspaper Navbharat Times dated 26.04.2012, the revocation petitioner came to know that the Delhi Development Authority was planning to give possession of the property bearing no. 34, Sector 23B, Pocket 7, Dwarka, New Delhi in lieu of land admeasuring 4 Bighas 14 Biswas in Khasra no. 482/2 and 638/564/565, village Shahpur Jat, New Delhi of Late Smt. Jhallo Devi, wherein through the said publication, the DDA had invited objections on the said allotment in favour of Smt. Saraswati. The petitioner on further inquiry into the matter found out that Smt. Saraswati Devi had Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:22:19 +0530 PC No. 6001/2016 Page 4 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State fraudulently obtained letters of administration in respect of the alleged Will of deceased Smt. Jhallo Devi by misrepresenting Ld. Court. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith his brothers issued a legal notice dated 23.07.2012 to DDA raising the necessary objections therein.
9. On these grounds, it is prayed that probate/ letters of administration dated 31.10.1985 granted in favour of Smt. Saraswati may kindly be revoked.
REPLY
10. Reply to the revocation petition was filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, whereby all the allegations made in revocation petition were categorically denied and it was contended that the petition had been deliberately filed to delay the handing over the said plot to the answering respondent and completely devoid of any merit. ISSUES:
11. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor court vide order dated 25.03.2013:-
"1. Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition? OPP
2. Whether applicant is entitled for revocation Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 PC No. 6001/2016 18:22:24 +0530 Page 5 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State of probate of Will/ letters of administration granted dated 31.10.1985 granted in favour of Smt. Saraswati Devi? OPP
3. Whether the objections filed on behalf of applicant are valid and maintainable? OPD
4. Relief."
EVIDENCE ADDUCED:
12. The petitioner in order to prove his case examined himself only as PW1.
13. PW1 i.e. petitioner tendered his affidavit of evidence as A-1 and relied upon the following documents on 21.05.2015 and 15.10.2015:-
i. Death certificate of Smt. Roopo as PW1/1, ii. Copy of his ration card Ex. PW1/2 (Original seen shown and returned), iii. Certified record of petition no.191/84, brought by him that day (for the purposes of identification the same endorsed Ex. PW1/3)( it was explained by Ld. counsel for petitioner that certified record was filed today, as earlier record was photocopy of other set of certificate and the record tendered that day was of fresh certified copies), iv. Certified copies of judgment in Probate Petition no.
191/84 was Ex. PW1/4;and of letter of Administration Ex. PW1/5 as per contents of his affidavit.
v. Photocopy of Public Notice, Mark A/PW1,
vi. Copy of legal notice dated 23.07.12 Mark B/PW1
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
18:22:28 +0530
PC No. 6001/2016
Page 6 of 22
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State and three postal receipts (colly.) as Mark C/PW1. vii. Original public notice vide publication in newspaper "Navbharat Times" dated 26.04.2012 as Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR).
14. PW-1 was cross examined at length on 15.10.2015, 04.02.2016, 13.07.2016 by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2. Respondent's evidence: -
15. Vide order dated 17.10.2019, Ld. Predecessor court has recorded that Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that upon instructions from his client, he did not wish to lead any evidence and to examine any witness in RE and however, reserved his right to rely on the evidence already led in the main proceedings. Thereafter matter was listed for final arguments.
16. I have heard the arguments of Ld. counsels for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
17. Time now to deal with the issues.
Issue No.1: Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition? OPP
18. No evidence was led to dispute the territorial jurisdiction of this court to try and entertain the present petition. Moreover, the present petition was got transferred Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 PC No. 6001/2016 18:22:34 +0530 Page 7 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State to this court vide order dated 02.04.2014 of Hon'ble High Court in Transfer Petition bearing TR.P.(C.) 94/2013. Accordingly, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition and hereby, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of revocation petitioner.
Issue No.2: Whether applicant is entitled for revocation of probate of Will/ letters of administration granted dated 31.10.1985 granted in favour of Smt. Saraswati Devi? OPP
19. The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner and in order to prove this issue, petitioner examined himself as PW-1. Apart from himself no other witness was examined on behalf of petitioner. Petitioner tendered his evidence through his affidavit of evidence A-1 on 21.05.2015. He also tendered death certificate of Smt. Rupo as Ex. PW1/1, copy of his ration card as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR), certified record of petition no.191/84 as Ex. PW1/3, certified copies of judgment in Probate Petition no. 191/84 as Ex. PW1/4 and of Letters of Administration Ex. PW1/5. Photocopies of Public Notice and copy of legal notice dated 23.07.12 and three postal receipts (colly.) were marked as Mark A/PW1, Mark B/PW1 as Mark C/PW1 respectively during his examination in chief Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 18:22:40 +0530 PC No. 6001/2016 Page 8 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State on 15.10.2015. He also tendered the original of public notice Mark A/PW-1, which is a publication in newspaper "Navbharat Times" dated 26.04.2012 and it was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR). In his affidavit of evidence A-1 he reiterated the contents of revocation petition while again deposing that Sh. Shivji Ram, who is one of the sons of Late Smt. Rupo, in connivance with Smt. Saraswati had forged and fabricated the Will dated 12.01.1983 to usurp the property of deceased Smt. Jhallo Devi. The abovesaid conspirator Shivji Ram is the brother of present revocation petitioner and he also filed a separate revocation petition u/s 263 of Indian Succession Act for revocation of the same letters of administration dated 16.05.1985 in favour of Smt. Saraswati Devi on a different ground by claiming that he never stood as a witness before the court in PC no. 191/84 and he never gave statement dated 24.04.1985 in that case and by also claiming that his signatures at attesting witnesses' verification clause dated 18.07.1984 in the probate petition no. 191/84 and his alleged signatures as an attesting witness on the alleged Will dated 12.01.1983 were forged and fabricated. In that case, Shivji Ram did not take the plea of non service of Smt. Rupo in PC no. 191/84. Interestingly in Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:22:45 +0530 PC No. 6001/2016 Page 9 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State the present case, the present revocation petitioner did not take the issue of impersonation and forged signatures of Shivji Ram. Moreover, when Shivji Ram filed an application u/o I rule 10 CPC in the present revocation petition and the present petitioner Sh. Jai Singh opposed his application. These altogether different allegations of the present revocation petitioner and Sh. Shivji Ram in their respective revocation petitions suggest that atleast one of the story is false because if Shivji Ram was impersonated before Ld. Probate court and his signatures were forged in the alleged Will and below the attesting witnesses' verification clause in the probate petition then it cannot be a case where he could said to be in connivance with Smt. Saraswati while forging and fabricating the alleged Will and vice versa.
20. Only evidence to prove the allegation that Smt. Rupo was not resident of H.No. 289, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi is copy of ration card Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR). Perusal of this document shows that date of issuance of this ration card has not been mentioned on it and the relevant space at the place of date on this document is blank. Even when during final arguments, the same was inquired from Ld. Counsel for petitioner, he remained unanswered regarding the same.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
18:22:50 +0530
PC No. 6001/2016
Page 10 of 22
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State Accordingly, this document cannot be relied upon as a proof of the fact that Smt. Rupo was not a resident of 269, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi at the time when she was served in PC no. 191/84. There is no dispute regarding date of death of Smt. Rupo on 13.10.2011 and as per death certificate Ex. PW-1/1, place of her death and her permanent residence has been mentioned as village Jasaur Khedi. However, this document also does not pertain to the relevant time when Smt. Rupo was served in the abovesaid PC no. 191/84. Accordingly, this document also cannot be said to be a proof to negate the fact that Smt. Rupo was allegedly served at wrong address in the abovesaid probate case. The remaining document Ex. PW- 1/3 to Ex. PW-1/5 pertaining to PC no. 191/84 are a matter of record, however, these are not proof of revocation petitioner's allegations. Similarly remaining documents i.e. Mark A/PW- 1 [Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR)] to Mark C/PW-1 are also not a proof in support of present revocation petitioner's contention regarding his entitlement for revocation of letters of administration dated 31.10.1985, because these documents are DDA public notice regarding inviting objections in respect of plot in question, legal notice sent by present revocation petitioner to DDA and postal receipts for proof of Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 PC No. 6001/2016 18:22:56 +0530 Page 11 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State sending the legal notice and not a proof of present petitioner's allegations.
21. On perusal of main case file of PC no. 191/84 one acknowledgment through post card addressed to Smt. Rupo at 269, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi is found to be on the file, which bears the date of 10.12.1984 and signature of receiver in the name of one Asha. The next date of hearing and the case title is also found to be mentioned on this acknowledgment card.
It is found to be issued from District & Sessions Court, Delhi. On inquiry during final arguments, Ld. Counsels for the parties submitted that Asha is the daughter-in-law of Shivji Ram.
22. Order dated 13.09.1984 in PC no. 191/84 shows that citation through newspaper publication and through affixation on the notice board of the court had been received after such publication and affixation.
23. It has been recorded in order dated 16.11.1984 in PC no. 191/84 by Ld. District Judge that notice sent to Smt. Rupo by ordinary process had been received back with the report that she came to the address in question occasionally and notice could not be sent to her by Regd. Post as registered cover was not filed. As per this order, the collector Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 PC No. 6001/2016 18:23:02 +0530 Page 12 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State had also been served.
24. As per court order dated 09.01.1985 in PC no. 191/84, respondent Smt. Rupo has been mentioned to be served by Regd. Post A/D and it has also been mentioned in the order that none was present for respondent, hence proceeded against ex-parte and thereafter the case was listed for evidence of the petitioner.
25. The objection taken by the present revocation petitioner that Smt. Rupo being the only legal heir of the testatrix Late Smt. Jhallo Devi was not made as a party does not find support. On perusal of main case file PC no. 191/84, it is found to be mentioned in the petition itself that Late Smt. Jhallo Devi left behind Smt. Rupo as her legal heir at the time of her death and Smt. Rupo is found to be served in this case in the abovesaid manner.
26. In support of this contention that Smt. Rupo remained unserved in PC no. 191/84, no cogent evidence was led on behalf of revocation petitioner to show that Smt. Rupo was not residing at the address where she was served in main case. The evidence Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex. PW-1/2 have been discarded in view of the abovesaid discussion. Accordingly, merely on the basis of bald statement it cannot be concluded Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 PC No. 6001/2016 18:23:07 +0530 Page 13 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State that Smt. Rupo was not residing at the address where she was declared to be served by Ld. District Judge in PC no. 191/84. Rather during his cross-examination dated 15.10.2015 it was answered by revocation petitioner/ PW-1 that whenever his maternal grandmother required her, his mother used to visit her and stay with her and his brother Shivji Ram used to stay with his maternal grandmother. This answer of PW-1 shows that his mother Smt. Rupo also used to stay with her mother Late Smt. Jhallo Devi. There is no dispute regarding resident of Smt. Jhallo Devi at 269, Shahpur Jat, Delhi. Accordingly, the revocation petitioner failed to prove that Smt. Rupo was wrongly served on the abovesaid address at 269, Shahpur Jat, Delhi.
27. The revocation petitioner did not produce any evidence in support of his contention that Will dated 12.01.1983 of Smt. Jhallo Devi is false and fabricated and Smt. Saraswati in connivance with Shivji Ram forged and fabricated this Will dated 12.01.1983 and thereafter Shivji Ram had deposed falsely before the court to wrongly prove the veracity of abovesaid Will. Merely a bald allegation cannot substitute the requirement of cogent evidence to prove the allegations. He also answered voluntarily that he and his Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 PC No. 6001/2016 18:23:13 +0530 Page 14 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State brothers also used to visit their maternal grandmother from time to time. During his cross-examination, he also answered that he also knew Asha, who was the daughter-in-law of Shivji Ram. During his cross-examination dated 04.02.2016, he also answered that he had cordial relations with his brother Shivji Ram. He also answered that there was no written correspondence/ informal letters with his brother Shivji Ram since they were visiting each other physically alongwith their families. Perusal of answers of PW-1 show that he had cordial relation with Shivji Ram and he used to meet Shivji Ram and his family alongwith his family. In the present circumstances where the present petitioner is alleging his brother as a conspirator against his property rights it is hard to believe that he alongwith his family shall have cordial relations with the brother and his family and shall also never inquire about this from his brother. He also answered that he did not know as to who inherited the property owned by Smt. Jhallo Devi after her death and he was also not aware when the Will was executed in favour of Smt. Saraswati by Late Smt. Jhallo Devi. He also answered that he did not know anything about any correspondence between DDA and testatrix or any litigation by his mother and his siblings for Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 PC No. 6001/2016 18:23:19 +0530 Page 15 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State property bearing no. 34, Sector 23B, Pocket 7, Dwarka, New Delhi. These answers of present petitioner show that either he intentionally tried to hide the truth of existence of Will dated 12.01.1983 of Late Smt. Jhallo Devi in favour of Smt. Saraswati Devi during his cross-examination or he knowingly slept over his right for more than 27 years because in absence of any supportive evidence it is very hard to believe that an educated person like him shall not inquire about his or his old aged mother's right to inheritance in the property of his grandmother for so long.
28. He also answered that he had not read or examined the entire record regarding probate/ letters of administration issued in favour of respondent no. 2/ Smt. Saraswati. He also answered that he did not know as to when the petition for probate was filed by Saraswati Devi and when notice were issued by the probate court in PC no. 191/84 to his mother Smt. Rupo and he had neither read nor examined the summons/ notices in abovesaid case to Smt. Rupo. These answers of revocation petitioner creates suspicious circumstance over his bald allegations. In order to show his incapacity in reading the aforesaid relevant record the present petitioner did not take a stand that he is illiterate rather during Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 18:23:24 +0530 PC No. 6001/2016 Page 16 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State his examination he answered that he could read English. It is hard to believe that an educated person capable to read English shall not read the available relevant record, which was allegedly misused to grab the property illegally to which he is allegedly a lawful claimant.
29. PW-1 also answered that his maternal grandmother was able to walk on her own when she passed away. It shows good physical health of testatrix till she passed away.
Moreover, the legality and validity of will was adjudicated by Ld. District Judge in PC no. 191/84 and this court does not sit in appeal to order/ judgment passed by Ld. District Judge, vide which the respondent no. 2 herein was held entitled for grant of letters of administration. No proof regarding any committal of fraud upon the court has been led by the revocation petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that in a case for grant of letters of administration on the basis of Will, in any case the petitioner is required to prove the legality and validity of the Will even if the petition remained uncontested. These cases does not fall in the category of regular civil cases where the relief may be granted on admission or no objection or non appearance of the defendant. Here the legality and validity of the Will needs to Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:23:29 +0530 PC No. 6001/2016 Page 17 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State be proved as per law in any circumstance. Moreover, the citation through general publication in daily newspaper and affixation on the notice board of the court was effected and even the Collector was also served and thereafter the Will was proved by the then petitioner in the satisfication of the court to be legally and validly executed by the testatrix and considering all these aspects Ld. District Judge granted letters of administration in favour of respondent no. 2/ Smt. Saraswati.
30. Moreover, the present petition is hopelessly time barred as present petition for revocation of letters of administration granted on 31.05.1985 was filed on 09.10.2012 i.e. after around 27 years of grant of letters of administration. Merely a bald statement was made on behalf of applicant/ revocation petitioner that he came to know about the probate/ letters of administration in favour of present respondent no. 2/ Smt. Saraswati in the year 2012 through publication in daily newspaper Navbharat Times dated 26.04.2012. However, it was not explained that why he did not claim for property of Smt. Jhallo Devi as left out after her death on 21.11.1983. It also remained unexplained that why he or his mother had not applied for allotment of any Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 PC No. 6001/2016 18:23:34 +0530 Page 18 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State such alternative plot in lieu of land owned by Smt. Jhallo Devi, which was acquired by government. During his cross- examination he answered that he had not initiated any litigation in respect of assets/ property owned by his maternal grand mother. It is not a case of present petitioner that he was not aware about his alleged right in the property of his grandmother Late Smt. Jhallo Devi. So, it appears that either he simply slept over his alleged right for so long or now he is voluntarily trying to take his chance to get the property of Late Smt. Jhallo Devi by hiding his knowledge about the abovesaid probate case and by alleging the abovesaid conspiracy and forgery.
31. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe, (2020) 17 Supreme Court Cases 284 has held as under:
"4. Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat, the appellant (hereafter "Ramesh") claiming to be a relative of Antoinette's husband, took out a notice of motion (No. 912 of 1997) in Petition No. 915/ 1982 (i.e. the original administration proceeding). That application (notice of motion) was allowed to be withdrawn, with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings. Ramesh claimed that neither he nor his father, nor any other family member had notice of the administration petition. It was alleged that only when the respondent LOA holder applied for mutation of name of Rural Gospel and Medical Mission of India, on the basis of the letters issued by the court, he come to know about it after making Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:23:38 +0530 PC No. 6001/2016 Page 19 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State inquiries in the office of the High Court. Ramesh claimed that on 29.03.1997 he learnt that the respondent had obtained letters of administration in respect of the will of Balaji by filing another Petition No. 912/ 97. This was allowed to be withdrawn on 01.04.1998. He then filed an application for revocation on 29.07.1999.
17. In the present case, the letters of administration were granted in ancillary proceedings on 25.11.1994. The High Court took note of the fact that the notice of motion (in the disposed of proceeding) was filed on 29.03.1997; it was withdrawn on 01.04.1998. The petition for revocation of the letters of administration were filed on 29.7.1999. Proceedings were clearly time barred, given that the original grant of the ancillary letters took place on 25.11.1994; they constituted notice to all concerned. Clearly, the petition for revocation of letters of administration was time barred. It is accordingly held that there is no infirmity in the concurrent findings impugned; the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs."
32. In the present case also, the applicant has claimed that neither he nor his mother or any other family member had notice of the letters of administration petition of Smt. Saraswati Devi and it is alleged that he came to know about the same only when he got knowledge of the publication dated 26.04.2012, however, no acceptable explanation is offered for such huge delay of around 27 years in a probate court for cancellation or revocation for grant of letters of administration. The proceedings are clearly time barred given that the original grant of the letters of administration took place on 16.05.1985; they constituted notice to all Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 PC No. 6001/2016 18:23:42 +0530 Page 20 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State concerned as the grant of probate by a Competent Court operates as a judgment in rem and once the probate to the Will is granted, then such probate is good not only in respect of the parties to the proceedings, but against the world and if the probate is granted, the same operates from the date of the grant of the probate for the purpose of limitation Under Article 137 of the Limitation Act in proceedings for revocation of probate. No explanation worthy of acceptance has been offered by the applicant to show as to why he did not approach the Court of law within the period of limitation.
33. In view of the abovesaid discussion, material/ evidence on record and the settled legal position, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant failed to prove his allegations and accordingly, he is not entitled for revocation of probate/ letters of administration dated 31.10.1985 granted in favour of Smt. Saraswati. Accordingly issue no. 2 is decided against the revocation petitioner. Issue No.3: Whether the objections filed on behalf of applicant are valid and maintainable? OPD
34. As issue no. 2 has already been decided against the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that this issue is liable to be struck off in exercise of power u/o XIV rule 5 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 18:23:46 +0530 PC No. 6001/2016 Page 21 of 22 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Jai Singh vs. State CPC, 1908.
35. In view of the aforesaid, issue no. 3 is hereby struck off in exercise of power u/o XIV rule 5 CPC. Issue No.4: Relief
36. In view of the finding given qua issues no. 1, 2 & 3, the present revocation petition is dismissed.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
Pronounced in the open Court SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
18:23:51 +0530
on this 9th day of June 2025
(DR. YADVENDER SINGH)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02 SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
PC No. 6001/2016
Page 22 of 22
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025