Delhi District Court
Surender Kumar Taneja vs . State & Ors on 26 September, 2014
Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors
In the Court of Additional District Judge02, South District,
Room No. 602, Sixth Floor, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi
In the matter of :
PC no. 151/2011
[Unique ID No. 02406C0331532010]
Ms Surender Kumar Taneja
r/o 6, Royal Way, Barrington Hills, Illinois60010
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of NCT Delhi through SDM South Delhi
2. Mr. Narindra Kumar Bafna s/o Sh S. C. Bafna
r/o E45, Greater Kailash II, New Delhi
3. Sh. Krishan Kumar Taneja aka Kamal Taneja
deceased through LRs
A. Mrs. Kamal Taneja
B. Mr.Hriday Taneja
C. Mr.Raja Taneja
D. Mr.Ashish Taneja
E. Ms.Mansie Taneja
At 4569 Kutch Bibi Gobar, Charke Walan, Delhi110006
4. Ms Santosh Gugnani
1502 Timber Trail, Sugar Land, Texas
5. Ms Shashi Taneja w/o Late Late Davinder Taneja
PC no. 151/11 Page 1 of 15
Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors
6. Ms Heena Manchanda d/o Late Sh.Davinder Taneja
7. Ms. Parul Saxena d/o Late Sh. Davinder Taneja
8. Mr. Gaurav Taneja S/o Late Sh. Davinder Taneja
All four at R157 Greater KailashI, New Delhi
9. Mr. Naveen Kumar Taneja aka Naveen Hardayal Tanjea
151 Jiwila Park, New City Light, Surat395017
...... Respondents
Date of filing : 08.11.2010 Date of Institution : 17.02.2011 Decision Reserved on : 11.09.2014 Date of Decision : 26.09.2014
( Petition u/s 263 r/w/s 61 of Indian Succession Act 1925 )
1. (Introduction): In order to decide the petition for revocation of probate granted in the year 1992, it is necessary to give introduction. Sh.Narinder Kumar Bafna (respondent no.2 herein) filed a probate petition no.220/85 against State/respondent for letter of administration that Sh.Hardayal Taneja (HD Taneja) executed a Will dt.23.07.1983, registered on 25.07.1983 in respect of his property / industrial plot no. A70 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi in favour of said Narender Kumar Bafna. The said petition named Sh.Naveen Kumar Taneja (son of deceased, respondent no.9 herein) and Ms. Krishna Kumari (daughter of deceased ) as his legal heirs left by him. Lateron, PC no. 151/11 Page 2 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors names of other legal heirs namely Ms.Santosh, (respondent no.4 herein), Surender Kumar Taneja (petitioner herein), Sh.Krishanji Taneja (respondent no.3 herein) and Sh.Davender Taneja (predecessor of respondents no.5 to 8 herein) were furnished by said Narinder Kumar Bafna. Citation/notices were issued to all of them. For want of appearance Sh.Surender Kumar and Sh.Santosh Kumari, they were proceeded exparte on 21.08.1992, after publication in the Newspaper as well service of citation on 27.6.1989 for 28.9.1984. Sh.Devender Kumar was served on 4.7.89 (through his wife for 28.7.1989), again served on 17.1.90 (for scheduled date 19.2.90). Shri Krishanji Taneja was proceeded exparte on 04.07.1991 for want of appearance after service on 31.5.1991. Sh.Naveen Kumar Taneja was proceeded exparte on 29.02.1986 and Ms. Krishna Kumari was proceeded exparte on 16.10.1985 for want of their appearance after service upon them. The case was put to petitioner's evidence. Sh. Govind Lal was examined as PW1 ) being attesting witness to the Will dt.23.07.1983) and Narender Kumar Bafna also stepped into witness box as PW2 narrating also that Will was handed over to him by Sh.Naveen Kumar Taneja (respondent no.9 herein). By judgment dt.27.11.1992 the petition was allowed for letter of administration in respect of Will executed by Sh.Hardayal , subject to PC no. 151/11 Page 3 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors his furnishing his estate duty clearance certificate, valuation report and administrative bond with one surety.
2.1 Now the present petitioner Sh Surender Kumar Taneja seeks revocation of letter of administration granted by way of probate case no.220/1985 by judgment dt.17.11.1992 on the ground that the Will dt.23.07.1983 is forged, fabricated and procured one, the petition was filed by concealing material facts like names of two legal heirs were mentioned in the petition but later other names were introduced, however, correct addresses were concealed from the court. The petitioner Surender Kumar Taneja shifted to USA in 1972 and respondent no.4 Ms Santosh Gugnani shifted there in 1972, therefore, publication of citation in India was a formality.
Sh.Hardayal Taneja expired on 29.11.1984, his wife Smt.Ram Pyari Taneja predeceased him on 05.10.1984. They left behind them, their six children petitioner Surender Kumar Taneja, respondent no. 3 Mr. Krishna Kumar Taneja, respondent no.4 Ms. Santosh Gugnani, Sh. Devender Taneja (since deceased, died in January 1990; predecessor of respondents no.5 to 8) and respondent no.9 Naveen Kumar Taneja, besides Ms.Krishna Kumari Taneja (daughter, who died on 22.07.2010). PC no. 151/11 Page 4 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors 2.2 The respondent no.2 Narender Kumar Bafna, who is not related with the deceased Lala Hardayal Taneja in his probate petition bearing no.220/1985 not only furnished incomplete names of legal heirs of deceased but also incorrect addresses vis a vis the Will was a procured Will, the petition was filed under the connivance of respondent no.2 and respondent no.5, which is emerging from the record itself that Naveen Kumar Taneja (respondent no.9 herein) who is one of the attesting witness to the alleged Will but never examined him as a witness before the court in the said probate petition. The said Will was obtained or procured under influence over the testator, which is appearing from its wording "....I owe some commitments". The Will narrates some premium, but it has not been specified, whereas it could have been in the personal knowledge of testator, consequently the Will is fabricated. On bare perusal of the Will, the mental facilities of testator can be ascertained that he was not free from undue pressure or he was not in the capacity to decide what is right and what is wrong.
2.3 Moreover, the respondent no.2, as a petitioner in the probate petition, failed to comply willfully the directions by omitting to furnish inventory in accordance with Chapter VII Part IX of the Act, 1925. PC no. 151/11 Page 5 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors In view of the above, the conditional grant of letter of administration of judgment dt.17.11.1992 is required to be revoked / canceled. 3.1 The citation to the present petition was published in the Statesman dt.26.3.2011 but none come forward from general public to participate. However, the respondents 3 / LRs gave their statement coupled with their respective affidavits that they have no objection to allow the petition u/s 263 of Indian Succession Act. Respondent no.3A also gave separate statement as an attorney of her husband. The respondent no.5 also gave her no objection to allow the petition. There is no reply by the other respondents 4 to 8.
3.2 Whereas the respondent no.9 filed his detailed reply and opposed the petition that this petition by Shri Surender Kumar Taneja is liable to be dismissed as it does not satisfy the requirement of law. This reply is blend of objections pertaining to this petition as well as to another petition in respect of deceased Ms Krishna Kumari Taneja (however relevant facts are being stated). The respondent no.9 admits about Will dt.23.7.1983 and confirms about the correctness of probate case no. 220/1985 filed by Sh.Narender Kumar Bafna vis a vis he was a witness to PC no. 151/11 Page 6 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors the said Will. The respondent no.9 denies that the Will was forged, fabricated or procured one. He also denies that the Will, or signatures thereon or finger prints of the testator were forged. The letter of administration granted in favour of respondent no.2 is stated to be correct.
While denying the petition, the respondent no. 9 says that the allegations in the petition with regard to names of legal heirs or their addresses are self contradictory since petitioner himself admits that name of all the legal heirs were furnished before the court, consequently the claim is not tenable. The respondent no.9 gives detail of Will left by Krishna Kumari Taneja in respect of property no. C9 Kailash Colony, New Delhi (which is not subject matter of this petition) as well as the facts of this petition to highlight that respondent no.3 to 8 are in connivance to make false claim in respect of property no.C9 Kailash Colony, New Delhi despite existence of Will and present petition is also on the same footing. It deserves dismissal.
3.3 In this petition, respondent no.2 is exparte vide order dated 26.3.2011, respondent no.4 is exparte by order dt.29.09.2012 and there is no reply by other respondents. The respondent no.9 filed reply , PC no. 151/11 Page 7 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors however, at later stage he stopped appearing.
4. (Issues) : From the available pleading of the parties of the petitioner and the respondent no.9, the following issues were framed on 29.09.2012 by the Ld. Predecessor: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled for revocation / recall of grant of letters of administration granted vide judgment dt. 17.11.1992 in probate case no.220/1985 in favour of respondent no.2/Sh.Narindra Kumar Bafna? OPP.
(2)Whether the objections filed on behalf of respondent no.9 are valid and maintainable? OPR.
(3)Relief.
5.(Evidence): In order to establish the case, petitioner Sh.Surender Kumar Taneja filed his affidavit, however, he had requested to exempt him from personal appearance and affidavit is to be tendered through his counsel, besides applications u/O XI and u/O XXVI CPC was filed to seek interrogatories from the respondent no.9 or to examine the petitioner on Commission, when he is abroad. The contentions by petitioner were disposed off by detailed order dt. 29.05.2014 and then petitioner came into the witness box and concluded his evidence.
However, the other respondents no.2,3,5,6,7 & 8 have not cross examined the petitioner nor they led evidence. The respondent no. PC no. 151/11 Page 8 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors 9 abstained to attend the proceedings,therefore, evidence was closed.
6. (Final Hearing) Sh.Vibhore Garg, Advocate for petitioner argued finally. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has gone through the record to demonstrate that there are two aspects, firstly there is material concealment of fact vis a vis the respondent no.2 and respondent no.9 were in connivance in obtaining letter of administration, none of them has come forward to challenge the testimony of the present petitioner; secondly the respondent no.2 failed to furnish appropriate inventory after necessary clearances from the authorities. The present petition satisfies the requirement of law. Ld. Counsel fortifies his contentions while relying upon 'Jeet Kaur Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr', (2008) 104 DRJ 255; wherein petition for revocation of succession certificate was allowed, since the name of real sister of deceased was concealed from the Court, the present case is not an exception to it as there was concealment of material facts either names legal heirs at first attempt or their addresses or some of them were out of country. The grant of letter of administration by way of misrepresentation, is liable to be revoked. 7.1 (Findings): The contentions of petitioner are assessed, in the light PC no. 151/11 Page 9 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors of material on record not only in the present petition but also the original record of probate case no.220/1985 which has been summoned and is available which has already been introduced in paragraph no.1 above about the proceedings and result of probate petition no.220/1985. The contentions of parties, will be discussed issue wise. Now issues are taken.
7.2 Issue no.1 & 2 : (1) Whether petitioner is entitled for revocation / recall of grant of letters of administration granted vide judgment dt. 17.11.1992 in probate case no. 220/1985 in favour of respondent no.2/Sh.Narindra Kumar Bafna? OPP. (2)Whether the objections filed on behalf of respondent no.9 are valid and maintainable? OPR.
Since both the issues are inter connected,therefore, both the issues are taken together. The onus to prove issue no.1 lies on petitioner and onus to prove issue no.2 lies on respondent no.9.
The petitioner based his case on the avernment mentioned in the petition that Sh.Hardayal Taneja, Smt.Ram Piari Taneja and Smt.Krishana Kumari Taneja are dead as per their death certificates (Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3). The perpetual lease deed in favour of Hardayal Taneja is matter of record. The respondent no.2 Sh.Narindra PC no. 151/11 Page 10 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors Kumar Bafna is not in blood relation of deceased Sh.Hardayal Taneja and the entire Will is silent, whether the Will was out of love and affection vis a vis a sentence has been left blank in the Will, whereas the perpetual lease deed reflects the consideration amount, which could be in the knowledge of the deceased only. The judgment dated 17.11.1992 has also not been complied, therefore, on both the footings the petitioner has succeeded to establish issue no.1 in his favour and for want of cross examination or for leading any kind of evidence. The respondent no.9 could not establish issue no.2 in his favour.
7.3 The other respondents namely respondents no. 5,6,7,8 or respondent no.3 have not made any submission in opposition of petitioner, otherwise there is already statement of respondent no.3 and 5 to allow the petition.
7.4 After taking into consideration the stock of facts, features, evidence and other material on record vis a vis the statutory period of law, particularly section 263 of Indian Succession Act, the issue no.1 is decided against the petitioner and consequently issue no.2 stands disposed off, this petition is dismissed for following reasons: PC no. 151/11 Page 11 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors A1. Ms.Krishan Kumari (since deceased) was issued citation of petition filed by Sh.Narindra Kumar Bafna, she failed to appear in the court, she was proceeded exparte on 16.10.1985.
A2. Another name in the list of legal heirs was of Naveen Kumar Taneja (respondent no.9 herein), he was also served on 08.01.1986 but for want of appearance, he was proceeded exparte on 19.02.1986. He also maintains that there was a Will by Sh.Hardayal Taneja, he was witness to it.
A3. The other respondents no.3 to 8 support the stand of petitioner that either their names were not mentioned or their correct addresses were not furnished or as if they were not served with the notice/citation of that petition, whereas the situation is contrary to it, being concluded in paragraph no.A4 to A7 below.
A4. Sh.Devender Kumar was issued notice by the Court (the respondents no.5 to 8 are successor in interest of Devender Kumar). Devender Kumar was served on 04.07.1989 for next date i.e.28.07.1989, the summons were received by his wife (i.e. present respondent no.5 Smt.Shashi Taneja). He was also served again.
A5. Sh.Krishan Kumar Taneja was also served on 31.05.1991 and for want of appearance he was proceeded exparte on 04.07.1991. The present respondents no.3(A) to 3(E) are successor in interest of Sh.Krishan Kumar Taneja.
PC no. 151/11 Page 12 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors A6. Petitioner Surender Kumar Taneja was also served with the notice through Naveen Taneja on 27.06.1989 for next date of 28.07.1989 and for want of appearance, he was proceeded exparte on 21.08.1992. A7. Similarly respondent no.4 was proceeded exparte on 31.08.1992. A8. From paragraph no.A4 to A7 it is apparent that either petitioner Surender Kumar Taneja or others namely Devender Kumar or Santosh Gugnani or Krishan Kumar Taneja or Krishna Kumari or respondent no.9, they all were served with notice/citation to the petition. They could have challenged the petition by way of appearance, reply and by participation in the proceeding of that case but they did not do; the respondent no.9 supports the petition.
B1. The petitioner Surender Kumar Taneja filed petition for revoke of letter of administration granted and the respondents no. 3 to 8 support the petition of Surender Kumar Taneja, whereas all of them were served with the petition, on issuance of notice by the Court. B2. Had there been the eventualities narrated in the present petition, all of them could have presented the same before the Court. Since they were aware that the petition has been filed and they may oppose the same.
B3. The petitioner alleges that Will is forged or it has not been proved, since Sh. Naveen Kumar Taneja, one of the witness to the Will failed to appear in the witness box. Whereas the the logics and contentions are contrary to law, in view of section 63(3) of the Indian Succession Act that there is requirement of two attesting witnesses to the Will and PC no. 151/11 Page 13 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors section 68 of Indian Evidence Act mandates that one of the attesting witness has to step into the witness box. PW1 Sh.Govind Lal had appeared in the witness box, in the said probate case no.220/1985. It was also assessed by the said court.
B4. In case the column of Will has been left blank, it was already under the scrutiny of Court ,who granted the letter of administration. B5. The petitioner intends to project that Sh.Hardayal was not under sound state of mind but there is no concrete evidence or record to make any inference as adverse to the state of physical and mental health of Hardayal Taneja.
C. The petitioner files the petition for revocation of letter of administration, as appears from the record it was very well known to him from the inception, otherwise, no contrary facts have been mentioned about knowledge of letter of administration subsequent to date of judgment. However, there is period of three years prescribed under article 137 of schedule appended with the Limitation Act, 1963. The letter of administration was granted in 1992 but the petition was filed on 29.10.2010, it is also barred by time.
D. The letter of administration was granted on the condition that after appropriate estate duty clearance etc. the bond will be furnished, however, the petition or the evidence led by the petitioner does not spell out that there is willful or without reasonable cause the bond has not been furnished, section 263(e) of Indian Succession Act, has not been proved by the petitioner.
PC no. 151/11 Page 14 of 15 Surender Kumar Taneja vs. State & Ors
8. Issue no.3: Relief.
Hence in view of findings given on issue no.1 and 2 & for want of proof of petition, it is dismissed.
The facts are speaking themselves like the petitioner, respondents no.3 to 8 were very well aware of the probate petition no. 220/1985 and it was not protested but despite this fact the petitioner filed this petition for revocation and now it is being supported by respondents no.3 to 8, they are in the confidence of each other. The petition is abuse of process of law. Cost is required to be imposed and accordingly cost of Rs.25,000/ is imposed on the petitioner to deposited with DLSA as well as further cost of Rs.15,000/ is imposed on respondents no.3 to 8 (to be shared by such respondents equally) to be deposited with DLSA within one month. In case costs are not deposited, the DLSA may take appropriate steps for its recovery, therefore, copy of this judgment be sent to Member Secretary, DLSA, Saket, Delhi.
Accordingly petition stands disposed of.
File be consigned to Record room.
Announced in the open Court (INDER JEET SINGH)
today Asvina, 4 Saka, 1936 Addl District Judge02(South), Saket
New Delhi/ 26.09.2014
PC no. 151/11 Page 15 of 15