Delhi District Court
Rai Singh Rana vs State on 11 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR: ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, (WEST)-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI.
M-45/10/09
Misc DJ-158295/16
Rai Singh Rana
... Petitioner
Versus
State
... Respondents
Date of original institution of the case : 03.06.2009
Date of reservation of order : 27.03.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.04.2017
JUDGMENT:
1 An application on behalf of the applicant Jagdish Prasad under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking Revocation of the Probate of the Will dated 09.02.1981 granted by this court vide its order dated 03.05.1982 has been filed.
2 The brief facts as stated in the application is that Jagdish Prasad is son of late Sh. Bhagwan Dass, ( hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') whose alleged will dated 09.02.1981 was in question.
3 It is stated that petitioner herein Rai Singh Rana had filed the present case for probating the Will dated 9.2.1981 with respect to a plot of DDA residential scheme late on allotted as the property No. H. No. 103, Block No. C-6/B, Janakpuri, Delhi-58. At the relevant time in 1980-81 the applicant Jagdish Prasad was residing in the Village Ramnagar, Distt. Meerut ( Now Distt.
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 1/34
Baghpat) with his father Sh. Bhagwan Dass/deceased. The
petitioner Rai Singh Rana who was the brother in law of Sh. Sukbir Singh ( elder brother of Sh. Jagdish Prasad) was residing at that time in Delhi and as such, deceased had requested to petitioner to look after the said allotment, which was yet to be notified by the DDA and informed them, as & when the said allotment is made or their presence is required.
4 It is further stated that the petitioner got some papers signed from deceased and applicant herein on the pretext of executing the power of attorney to deal with the DDA on behalf of deceased. Sh. Sukhbir Singh, elder son of deceased was also a conspirator in the above conspiracy, who was acting in connivance with his brother in law Sh. Rai Singh Rana.
5 It is stated that after forging the documents, by fabrication, with malafide intentions, petitioner changed the address of deceased in the records of the DDA, so that all the information was given by the DDA to petitioner and deceased or applicant never came to know abut the said plot from DDA. It is stated that even the said plot was allotted in the name of deceased by the DDA vide their letter dated 28.10.1980 which was also sent to the address of petitioner and never communicate to deceased and as such he never came to know about the allotment.
6 It is stated Sh. Rai Singh Rana, acting in connivance with Sh. Sukhbir Singh, forged the Will dated 09.02.1981, which was got affixed by thumb impressions from deceased pretending to be the power of attorney and deceased affixed his thumbs, M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 2/34 believing the same to be the power of attorney, without reading or understanding the contents of the same. The petitioner also got the signatures of applicant on those papers in connivance with Sh. Sukhbir Singh. It is stated that the alleged Will dated 09.02.1981, do not fine mention of any title of will or vasiyatnama and the same is not on tamp paper and the same do not bears the photographs of the executor or the beneficiary. The said alleged will dated 09.02.1981 was not even registered. The said alleged will dated 09.02.1981 was not even registered. In fact petitioner had committed criminal beach of trust by forging and fabricating the documents by breaching the trust of deceased and applicant.
7 It is stated that whenever deceased & applicant had enquired about the said DDA plot, the petitioner misled them by saying that the plot has not been given due to the society of land for allotment and due to the acquisition by the government in the said area. The deceased and applicant always believed him, as he was the brother in law of Sh. Sukhbir Singh, but petitioner took undue benefit of the same and kept deceased in dark till his death and applicant till now. Who was not even aware that the plot has already been allotted & its possession has already been taken by petitioner, who is enjoying the same in complete exclusion of applicant.
8 It is stated that neither petitioner nor Sukhbir Singh ever uttered a word about the will dated 09.02.1981 at any place. Even Sukhbir Singh had not even mentioned in his case about the said Will dated 09.02.1981 filed by him against the applicant herein Jagdish Prasad. This alleged will dated M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 3/34 09.02.1981 for the first time surfaced during the trial of the case filed by Sukhbir Singh against his brother applicant before the civil court.
9 It is stated that applicant herein was not aware about the existence of any Will dated 9.2.1981 as in fact deceased had executed only one Will dated 2.5.1981, in which he had mentioned that residential plot measuring about 200 sq yds, has been allotted by DDA whose location is yet to be notified. Further he had mentioned that his both sons namely Sukhbir Singh and Jagdish Prasad will be owner of half share each in the said plot and they will be at liberty to sell their shares. It was further mentioned in the Will dated 2.5.1981 that this is last Will and all the earlier Will written by him be treated as cancelled. It is stated that after the death of deceased, the applicant herein was not aware about the location of the plot and as such was not able to take any action with regard thereto as mentioned above.
10 In the year 1998 as the relation of Sh. Sukhbir Singh got strained with his brother Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Sukhbir Singh instituted a false civil suit against the applicant therein Jagdish Prasad, inter-alia, claiming the ownership of the properties bearing municipal No. WZ-1228-A and 1230-1233, Nagal Raya, New Delhi on the basis of another will dated 8.11.1977. It may be important to not that even Shri Sukhbir Singh had not mentioned about any Will 9.2.1981 in his pleadings, which clearly shows that he deliberately concealed the same to protect his brother in law Rai Singh Rana. This further goes to show that Sukhbir Singh was acting hands in golves with Rai Singh Rana.
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 4/34 11 It is stated that applicant herein who was the
defendant in the suit of the filed by Sukhbir Singh as mentioned above, contested the said suit on the basis of will dated 2.5.1981 which was the last & final subsisting will executed by deceased. It is stated that during the pendency of the said suit Sukhbir Singh, plaintiff in the said suit produced petitioner as his witness PW-6, in which he mentioned for first time regarding the Will dated 9.2.1981 and about letters of administration by this court vide order dated 3.5.1982, however, Will dated 9.2.1981 or the order dated 3.5.1982 was never produced by them in the court. This record was produced later on by Shri Chander Kant Babber, LDC, Record Room Sessions, Delhi on 27.7.2006.
12 It is stated that above suit was tried by the court of Shri Lal Singh ADJ, who dismissed the said suit vide his judgment and decree dated 29.4.2008, inter-alia, holding that Will dated 2.5.1981 is the last and final Will, after considering all the Will dated 08.11.1977, 09.02.1981 & 02.05.1981. It is stated that against the said judgment and decree dated 29.4.2008 the brother of the applicant herein Shri Sukbir Singh had filed the regular first appeal no. 292/2008, which is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court, but there is no no stay of the above judgment & decree dated 29.04.2008.
13 It is stated that applicant was not having any documents with respect to the suit property, i.e the property no. H.No. 103, Block No. C-6/B, Janakpuri, Delhi-158 as such he applied for the documents form Delhi Development Authority, under Right Information Act, through his various application dated 4.7.2008, 8.7.2008, 15.7.2008, 13.08.2008, 19.8.2008 and 9.9.2008 which were supplied to him in piece mean by DDA.
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 5/34
14 It is stated that applicant got issued a legal notice
dated 2.11.2008 to petitioner, inter-alia asking him to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the above said suit property, but neither any reply was given by petitioner nor the possession of the property has been given. Thereafter applicant also filed a complaint in the police station Mayapuri, District South-West, New Delhi on 9.12.2008 which is pending investigation before the police authority.
15 The police authority had informed the applicant herein in the first week of February, 2009, that it would be better for the applicant to pursue his civil remedy, inter-alia, challenging the order dated 3.5.1982 as the same has been obtained by petitioner by manipulating the documents by forging the signature thereon.
16 It is stated that even Sh. Sukbir Singh had not mentioned about any will dated 9.2.1981 in his plaint/case. Further even if it is presumed for the sake of argument, that the alleged will dated 9.2.1981 was ever executed by late Shri Bhagwan Dass, then the said Will stood cancelled by his last Will dated 2.5.1981, which has been held to be the last and final Will of deceased by the civil court.
17 It is stated that once the ld. Civil Court had held that deceased had executed his last Will dated 02.05.1981 and the same is final, all alleged previous Wills including the Will dated 09.02.1981 became useless and inoperative and the probate is liable to be recalled in these circumstances. It is stated that if the present application is not allowed and the order dated 3.5.1982 M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 6/34 is not revoked, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the applicant herewith and against petitioner. The petitioner seeks reovoke of the probate of the will dated 09.02.1981 granted by this court vide order dated 03.05.1981 and dismiss the petition filed by petitioner, Sh. Rai Singh Rana.
18 Upon filing of the above said application/petitioner for revocation, notice was issued to non-applicant/petitioner. The non-applicant/petitioner filed reply to the above said application under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act and taken preliminary objection that the present application is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present under Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act. Applicant himself appeared before the court and gave no objection to the petition of the petitioner.
19 It is stated that applicant has also given no objection to DDA authorities when property in dispute was declared free hold after the Letter of Administration was granted to the petitioner. It is stated that applicant is also estopped by his act and conduct from filing present application as after getting the Letter of administration on 03.05.1982, petitioner got his name mutated in the record room of DDA. The applicant and his brother gave no objection, thereafter name of the petitioner was mutated in the record of DDA. Lease Deed dated 11.10.1985 was registered in the name of petitioner. After registration of lease deed petitioner got loan of Rs. 71,000/- from Government of India and constructed the building after getting his site plan sanctioned. The applicant knowingly did not take any objection.
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 7/34 The house in dispute was constructed in two years i.e November 1985 to August 1987.
20 It is further stated that construction was made by the petitioner which was well within the notice of applicant. Applicant attended Grah Pravesh on 09.09.1987. Applicant is regular visitor of house of Sh. Sat Pal Singh who is neighbour of petitioner and is relative of applicant and used to visit the house of the petitioner as well. The applicant never objected petitioner from constructing or residing in house in dispute. Applicant never shown his so call Will which did not see the light of the day. Applicant never asserted his right in suit property at any point of time except in false and frivolous litigation between two brothers. Alleged Will of the applicant has no mention in any of settlement deed admitted between two brothers.
21 It is stated that application is clearly time barred. The letter of administration was granted on 03.05.1982. Application for revocation has been filed after 27 years of the order. It is stated that application for revocation is not maintainable. There is no ground available to applicant for revocation. Applicant himself appeared and field No Objection. The applicant neither presented alleged will nor referred any will at the time when he appeared and submitted no objection in the court. It is not the case of applicant that alleged will was recovered/located later on.
22 It is stated that petitioner was not a party in the case between two brothers. Any judgment, order in between two brothers in which petitioner was not a party is not binding upon M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 8/34 the petitioner. The alleged will for applicant is false, frivolous, forged, antedated and ante time. The will in favour of the petitioner for which letter of administration was granted contains details of property mentioned by executant of will himself but in the will alleged by applicant there are no details of property in dispute. Order dated 03.05.1982 granting letter of administration in favour of petitioner is judgment in rem and is binding on all.
23 It is stated that applicant has made a false claim before this court, applicant has also forged a will dishonestly applicant has also sworn a false affidavit, so applicant is liable for penal action. Applicant has committed offences of perjury etc. with dishonest intention to put petitioner in loss. Non- applicant/petitioner seeks proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C against the applicant. On merit all the averments mentioned in the application are denied. Non-applicant seeks dismissal of the application with special costs.
24 The applicant Jagdish filed replication to the reply filed by the non-applicant, petitioner and denied all the averments mentioned in the reply.
25 On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by my ld. Predecessor on 16.07.2011:-
1. Whether the present application is time barred? OPP/R
2. Whether the applicant is estopped from filing the present application? OPR/R M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 9/34
3. Whether the probate dated 3.5.1982 granted in favour of the petitioner respondent Rai Singh Rana qua the Will dated 9.2.1981 is liable to be revoked, as prayed for? OPA
4. Relief
26 In the revocation petition, applicant/petitioner Jagdish Prasad appeared as AW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. AW-1/A. In the affidavit Ex. AW-1/A, applicant reiterated the averment mentioned in the application/petitioner for revocation. He exhibited the Hindi Translation of his affidavit as Ex. AW-1/B, Letters dated 9.11.1980, 14.04.1981, 28.10.1980, 17.01.1981, 09.08.1985, 22.08.1985 as Ex. AW-1/1 to Ex. AW-1/6 respectively. He further exhibited the Will dated 02.05.1981 as Ex. AW-1/7, Certified copy of plaint dated 06.02.1999 as Ex. AW- 1/8, Certified copy of judgment dated 29.04.2008 as Ex. AW-1/9 and letters dated 04.07.2008, 08.07.2008, 15.07.2008, 13.08.2008, 19.08.2008 and 09.09.2008 are Ex. AW-1/10- to Ex. AW-1/15 respectively, legal notice dated 02.11.2008 as Ex. AW- 1/16 and complaint dated 09.12.2008. (Exhibition of document Ex. AW-1/16 is objected on the mode of proof).
27 In the cross-examination he stated that he is residing at WZ-1228-A, Nangal Raya, New Delhi-46 since 1985. He does not know when the petitioner constructed his house at 103-C, Block-6 B, Janak Puri, New Delhi. He knew that Sh. Satpal son of his sister in law is residing in the same Block of the petitioner. He never visited the house of the petitioner and Sh. Sat pal. He M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 10/34 denied the suggestion that he deliberately denying the fact that he has been visiting the aforesaid houses of the petitioner and Sh. Satpal. He admitted that the distance between his house and the aforesaid two houses is about 1 ½ K.M. 28 In further cross-examination he admitted that in 1958 DDA acquired agricultural land of village Nangal Raya including the land of his father late Sh. Bhagwan Dass and he was paid full compensation. His father had plot bearing No. 1228-A, measuring 550 Sq. yards in Nangal Raya located on the main road leading to the village adjoining, Arya Samaj Road, Nangal Raya, New Delhi. He denied the suggestion that same is adjoining D-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi. He admitted that eight shops and residential rooms have been built up on the above said plot i.e 1228-A measuring 550 sq. yards in Nangal Raya, New Delhi. Four shops of them have let out to the tenants while others are in his possession.
29 He further admitted that his father purchased agricultural land in Village Ram Nagar, District Baghpat, UP which in fact was purchased by their grand-father. He was residing there in Village Ram Nagar with his father. He used to come to Delhi to collect rent from the tenant of 1228-A measuring 550 sq. yards in Nangal Raya, New Delhi. He denied the suggestion that in 1967 his father told the petitioner Sh. Rai Singh that he could get a plot of land for him as one plot had been canceled for non- payment and he had the option to re-apply to the Delhi Government for allotment of a plot in Delhi to which the petitioner agreed. He denied the suggestion that in the year 1978 his father re-applied to the DDA for allotment of a plot in lieu of the previous cancellation of the previous plot.
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 11/34
30 He denied the knowledge that in response to the said
re-application, DDA allotted plot no. C-6B/103, Janak Puri, New Delhi measuring 165.25 sq mtrs on 28.10.1980. He also denied the knowledge if all the formalities for applying the plot and getting it allotted done by the petitioner himself. He denied the suggestion that all the correspondence regarding allotment of the aboves said plot were done from and to the address of his father at 1228-A, Nangal Raya, New Delhi. He denied the suggestion that with the said letter of allotment the petitioner contacted his father at his residence at Ram Nagar, UP and his father asked the petitioner to make all the payments to DDA on which the petitioner requested his father to ensure that the plot was transferred in the name of the petitioner to enable him to apply for loan from the government to construct a house thereon. He admitted that at that time the petitioner was residing in Delhi and he was in service. He does not know if he was a government service i.e Ministry of Agriculture.
31 In further cross-examination he denied the suggestion that on 09.11.1980, his father wrote a letter to the DDA giving name and address of the petitioner stating that all correspondence be done at the said address of the petitioner I.e WZ-48, Naraina, New Delhi. He denied the knowledge if all the payments to the DDA were made by the petitioner in respect of the plot bearing no. C-6B/103, Janak Puri, New Delhi including payment was made through demand draft on 11.08.1980 and 17.11.1980. He does not know if no payment was made by his father to the DDA in respect of the said plot. He also does not know if his father gave affidavit on stamp paper of Rs. 2 to the DDA stating that the petitioner was authorized to take possession M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 12/34 of the plot from DDA and to sign and give proper receipt to the DDA.
32 In further cross-examination he denied the suggestion that his father executed Will dated 9.2.1981 bequeathing the plot in favoaur of the petitioner and got it duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Meerut Court. He further denied the suggestion that same was prepared and signed by Sh. Charan Singh, Advocate. He denied the suggestion that his brother, namely, Sukhbir Singh and himself signed and put thumb impression the said Will as attesting witnesses. He does not know if Sh. Charan Singh, Advocate sent the registered Will by registered post to the petitioner on which the petitioner wrote a letter to the DDA to get the plot mutated in his name on which he was informed to obtain the probate of the Will vide letter dated 22.09.1982 and copy of the same Mark AW-1/D1. He also does not know if subsequent to the requirement of the DDA, the petitioner filed a petition for grant of Probate of the Will on which the probate was granted vide judgment dated 24.03.1982 by the court of Sh. Jagdish Chandra, Ld. District Judge, Delhi in P.C No. 239/1981. He denied the suggestion that Sh. Lal Singh, Advocate had filed No Objection written statement on his behalf in the said PC No. 239/1981.
33 In further cross-examination he stated that he came to know about the allotment of plot C-6B/103, Janak Puri, New Delhi on 27.7.2006. He further stated that his father executed a Will dated 2.5.1981 and on the same day he came to know that a plot had been allotted by the DDA in the name of his father. He denied the suggestion that no such Will dated 2.5.1981 was ever M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 13/34 executed by his deceased father. He never inquired or made efforts to find out or have the knowledge about the details of the plot which was allotted in the name of his father in the year 1980 during the period from 02.05.1981 till 2008 when he filed RTI with DDA. During the said period he did not know as to where the petitioner was residing.
34 He further admitted that a family settlement was arrived at between his brother, namely, Sukhbir Singh and himself in respect of properties situated at Nangal Raya, Khatauli and Ram Nagar. There was no settlement between we two brother regarding the plot allotted by the DDA to his father in Delhi as mentioned in the aforesaid Will dated 02.05.1981. He denied the suggestion that the plot bearing No. C-6B/103, Janak Puri, New Delhi was not mentioned in the said family settlement as he knew at that time that all the payments were made to the DDA by the petitioner with the consent of his father. He denied the suggestion that during the period from 1986 to 1987 he had been visiting that area being close to Nangal Raya where the property no. 1228-A is situated and also his relative namely, Sh. Satpal, who is son of his brother in law residing at C-6B/11, Janakpuri, New Delhi which is in the neighbourhood of C-6B/103, Janak Puri, New Delhi.
35 In further cross-examination he deposed that he came to know for the first time in 2006 that his father had applied for a plot in DDA. On 2.5.1981 he came to know that a plot had been allotted by the DDA in the name of his father. He did not take any action to find out the details of the said allotment. He did not know nor he tried to find out as to what M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 14/34 amount was to be deposited with the DDA for the said plot. He does not know till date if the said plot was given to him and his brother by their father. He denied the suggestion that he does not know the fact regarding the purchase of the said plot by their father as the same was not for his father or they, two brothers.
36 He denied the suggestion that the plot was applied by their father through the petitioner for the petitioner and as such he executed the Will dated 09.02.1981 in favour of the petitioner. He does not know that after taking possession of the said plot by the petitioner against full payments and he constructed house thereon from his own funds including loan from his department. He denied the suggestion that he was served with the notice of probate petition in the present case and he filed No Objections to the grant of probate to the petitioner. He also does not know that No Objections was filed by him in the DDA regarding Mutation of the suit property in favour of the petitioner. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately challenging the probate proceedings conducted in the court and the proceedings taken by the DDA regarding property of the present case.
37 Applicant Jagdish further examined Sh. Sant Ram, Assistant from the office of DDA, LAB ® as AW-2 who proved the correspondence in reference of DDA's letter No. F-23(29)/80-LSB ® dated 28.10.80 as Ex. AW-1/1 ( OSR), letter dated 14.04.1981 to Mr. Bhagwan Das S/o Sisram from the Deputy Director ( R) DDA as Ex. AW-1/2 ( OSR), Letter dated 28.10.1981 as Ex. AW- 1/3( OSR), Special Power to take over possession dated 17.01.1981 as Ex. AW-1/4 ( OSR), letter dated 09.08.1985 as Ex.
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 15/34 AW-1/5, Letter dated 22.08.1985 as Ex. AW-1/6 ( OSR) and registered Will dated 09.02.1981 as Ex. AW-2/1 ( OSR).
38 In the cross-examination he deposed that the copy of the Will Ex. AW-2/6 was filed alongwith letter from Rai Singh Rana dated 05.08.1981 which was received in the office of DDA on 06.08.1981. As per record the plot was recorded in the DDA record in the name of Rai Singh Rana. Vide separate statement of applicant/ Jagdish Prasad evidence on behalf applicant Jagdish was closed on 15.12.2015.
39 The Non-applicant/respondent examined Sh. Charan Singh Advocate as RW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-1 who deposed that deceased Sh. Bhagwan Dass S/o Sh. Sis Ram executed the Will Ex. P-X put his thumb impressions at points A1 and A4 in his presence and in the presence of the witnesses namely, Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Jagdish Prasad and Prahlad Singh. He signed the Will at point B and witness Sukhbir Singh signed the will at point C and witness Jagdish Prasad signed the Will at point D and witness Jagdish Prasad and Prahlad Singh also put their thumb impression at points F and G. 40 In the cross-examination he admitted that Will/Vashiyat is not mentioned on the title in the document. He admitted that there are no signatures of the witnesses on the first page of the document Ex. P-X. He admitted that there is no title on Ex. P-X. It is correct that Ex. P-X is not signed by deceased. He voluntarily stated that there are thumb impressions of deceased on Ex. P-X. When deceased was asked to sign Ex. P-
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 16/34 X, he stated that he was unable to sign. He cannot say whether he was ill or not. He denied the suggestion that the alleged thumb impressions are not of deceased Bhagwan Dass. He denied the suggestion that Will is forged at the instance of Sukhbir Singh and Rai Singh Rana. He denied the suggestion that the signatures of Jagdish Prasad are also forged on the Will. He was never engaged as counsel by Sukhbir Singh or Rai Singh Rana in any case. He denied the suggestion that no such Will was ever executed by the deceased Bhagwan Dass. He denied the suggestion that he is acting in conveyance with Rai Singh Rana. He has been brought today by Sh. Rai Singh Rana.
41 Non-applicant/respondent further examined Sh. Dinesh Sing, son of late Sh. Sukhbir Singh, another attesting witness to the will Ex. P-X as AW-2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-2 and deposed that late Sh. Bhagwan Dass was his grandfather and he executed a Will Ex. P-X. Late Sh. Sukhir Singh was his father. He signed the Will Ex. P-X at point C whose signatures he identified. He also identified the signatures of his uncle Sh. Jagdish Prasad at point D on Ex. P-X. 42 In the cross-examination he deposed that apart from the Will dated 09.02.1981, Bhagwan Dass had executed a Will in the year 1977. He denied the suggestion that Bhagwan Dass also executed a Will dated 02.05.1981. He denied the suggestion that Ex. AW-1/7 is the Will of Bhagwan Dass dated 02.05.1981. He admitted that a case was filed by his father against Jagdish Prasad which they have lost in District Court and an appeal has been filed by them in Delhi High Court which is pending. He does not know whether his father had said in 1998 that there is no M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 17/34 other Will except Will dated 1977. He denied the suggestion that he wrongly identifying signatures of his uncle Jagdish Prasad on Ex. P-X. He denied the suggestion that those signatures are not of Jagdish Prasad. He denied the suggestion that plot in question is belongs to equally to Sukhbir Singh, Jagdish Prasad and Rai Singh Rana has no concerned or relation with the same.
43 In further cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he is giving wrong evidence because of the pending of the case filed by his father against Jagdish Prasad. He admitted that Ex. P-X was not signed by his father or his uncle Jagdish Prasad in his presence. He denied the suggestion that Will Ex. P-X was forged by Rai Singh Rana in connivance with his father Sukhbir Singh. He admitted that Rai Singh Rana had appeared as witness on their behalf in the case filed by his father against Jagdish Prasad. He has no personal knowledge about the Will Ex. P-X. He admitted that he has been called by Rai Singh Rana to depose on his behalf.
44 The non-applicant/respondent examined himself as RW-3 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW3/A,. He rely upon the Will dated 09.02.1981, original of which has already been exhibited as Ex. PX; proceedings of the court of Sh. Jagdish Chandra, Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi are Ex. R-2; reply of Sukhbir Singh and Jagdish Prasad filed in the court of Sh. Jagdish Chandra, Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi are Ex. R-3, copy of receipt of DDA dated 11.08.1980 is Ex. R-4 (OSR); copy of another receipt of DDA dated 17.11.1980 is Ex. R-5 (OSR); copy of the judgment of the court of Sh. Jagdish Charda, Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi is Ex. R-6 (original of which is in the M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 18/34 attached file); No Objection affidavit of Sh. Sukhbir Singh and Jagdish Prasad along with letter of DDA dated 10.11.2009 is Ex. R-7; copy of perpetual lease deed dated 11.10.1985 is Ex. R-8 (OSR); copy of conveyance deed dated 06.01.2008 is Ex. R-9 (OSR); copy of loan sanction letter dated 28.02.1986 is Ex. R-10 (OSR).
45 In the cross-examination he deposed that he was serving in the Ministry of Agriculture, government of India from 1965 to 2000. He stayed on rent in Village Nangal and village Naraina. He stayed in village Naraina from 1978 to 1982 and stayed in village Nangal from 1983 to 1984. He deposed that his sister Dayawati got married to Sh. Sukhbir S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass in the year 1957 and Dayawati was taken to the house of Sh. Bhagwan Dass in village Ram Nagar, Bhagpath, U.P. He deposed that never stayed in the house of Sh. Bhagwan Dass at any point of time. Sh. Bhagwan Dass never stayed with him in his house.
46 During the cross-examination witness was shown his statement recorded on 24.3.1982 in the P.C. No. 239/81 and he identified his signatures at Point A under his deposition. In further cross-examination he deposed that his place of origin is in village Chindaura, Muzafarnagar, U.P. Sh. Bagwan Dass ( testator) had his place of resident at Bhagpat and permanent address at Nangal Rai, Delhi. At the time of execution of the will the District headquarter of village Ram Nagar was Meerut and as such the will dated 9.2.1981 was registered in Meerut. He had not seen Sh. Bhagwan Dass while reading and writing. He voluntarily deposed that but he used to put his thumb impressions. Again said sometimes he used to sign and sometime he used to put his M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 19/34 thumb impression. He deposed that he was not present at the time of when the Will dated 9.2.1981 was executed. He is aware of the contents of Will dated 9.2.1981.
47 In further cross-examination regarding payment he deposed that the payment was made by him on behalf of Sh. Bhagwan Dass as the plot was alloted in his name. He denied the suggestion that Sh. Bhagwan Dass had made the payment for the allotted plot from his own funds. He deposed that he had the applicant Jagdish Prasad signing at the time when he signed the NOC which was submitted with DDA and when he signed his statement in the Probate Case. He deposed that he did not get these documents of NOC and the written statement in the Probate case prepared for Jagdish Prasad. Sh. Sukhbir Singh came from Khatauli, U.P and Sh. Jagdish Prasad came from Ram Nagar in Delhi on 23.11.1981. He deposed that he was not present when the written statement ( Ex. R-3) was got prepared on 23.11.1981 but I had seen Jagdish Prasad signing the same. He does not recollect if the NOC Ex. R-7 submitted to DDA was prepared on the same day.
48 He further deposed that the signatures of Sh. Jagdish Prasad and Sh. Sukhbir Singh appear on one or two places but he does not recollect the exact number. He deposed that he had got the summoned issued to Sh. Jagdish Prasad and Sh. Sukhbir Singh prior to 23.11.1981 and they appeared in person on summons and on my request. He denied the suggestion that the summons had not been issued or served to Sh. Jagdish Prasad and Sukhbir Singh prior to 23.11.1981. He further denied the suggestion that Sh. Jagdish Prasad had not come to Delhi on M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 20/34 23.11.1981 and 23.02.1982. He denied the suggestion that I had asked someone else to impersonate Sh. Jagdish Prasad on 23.11.1981 and 23.02.1982 in the court. He further denied the suggestion that for that reason no one had identified Sh. Jagdish Prasad on 23.02.1982. He denied the suggestion that he had connived with Sh. Sukhbir Singh, his brother in law to create these false documents dated 9.2.1981, 23.11.1981 and asked someone to impersonate Sh. Jagdish Prasad on 23.02.1982.
49 He deposed that he had got two to three letters signed from Sh. Bhagwan Dass which were addressed to DDA. Those letters were typed by nephew of Sh. Bhagwan Dass and took those to Ram Nagar where Bhagwan Dass was residing. One of the letter pertains to change of address for correspondence with DDA whereby my address was given of village Naraina. The other was an authority letter authorising him to take possession. It was not mentioned in either of these letters that plot in question has been sold by Sh. Bhagwan Dass to him.
50 In further cross-examination he deposed that there was no agreement of sale and purchase between me and Sh. Bhagwan Dass. There was no demand of premium by Bhagwan Dass. He denied the suggestion that Sh. Bhagwan Dass was not aware about the will dated 9.2.1981 therefore he did not mention in his subsequent will dated 2.5.81 that the plot allotted by DDA is to be given to me. He denied the knowledge about the will dated 2.5.81 executed by Bhagwan Dass. He admitted the suggestion that he had appeared as a witness in a case between Sh. Sukhbir Singh and Jagdish Prasad. He voluntarily deposed M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 21/34 that he produced the will dated 9.2.81. He denied the suggestion that he came to know about the will dated 2.5.81. He denied the suggestion that he had deliberately not filed any case for declaring the will 2.5.81 as null and void inspite of being aware about the same.
51 He further deposed that the papers submitted by Sh. Bhagwan Dass to DDA were prepared by Sh. Raghubir Singh, nephew of Sh. Bhagwan Dass who used to take those paper to Ram Nagar where Bhagwan Dass was residing and he used to file those papers in the office of DDA. Sh. Raghubir Singh used to hand over the papers to him in Delhi where he used to visit him. One letter was signed by Sh. Bhagwan Dass in his presence whereas the other two were not signed in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely stated that Sh. Bhagwan Dass signed one letter in my presence and Sh. Raghubir Singh brought the other letters to him as he had obtained the signatures of Sh. Bhagwan Dass on certain blank papers on the pretext of preparing SPA/GPA for representing Bhagwan Dass in the office of DDA for allotment and take over the possession of the plot. He denied the suggestion that the will dated 9.2.1981 was similarly prepared by me on blank papers which were got signed by him from Sh. Bhagwan Dass and Sh. Jagdish Prasad for the purpose of preparing of power of attorney.
52 He denied the suggestion that he had prepared the written statement filed on 23.11.1981 in this probate case by using the blank papers having the signatures of Sh. Jagdish Prasad. He denied the suggestion that Jagdish Prasad was not present in Delhi on that day. He further denied the suggestion M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 22/34 that only Sukhbir Singh was present on 23.11.1981 and therefore he had signed twice on the written statement as the advocate may have asked him to sign in his presence. He deposed that he cannot admit or deny the suggestion that on 23.02.1982 no advocate or officer of the court has identified Jagdish Prasad.
53 He deposed that he is not aware about all the family members of late Sh. Bhagwan Dass. Sh. Bhagwan Dass had three daughters. He denied the suggestion that he had deliberately named the daughters of Bhagwan Dass/their L.Rs as close relative in the present probate case. He denied the suggestion that this was done deliberately as he wanted to probate of will 9.2.1981 clandestinely. He deposed that he had filed the documents dated 9.11.80 which is marked as Mark X and document titled special power to take over possession dated 17.01.1981 executed by Sh. Bhagwan Dass which is marked as Mark Y. He deposed that he had deposed above that he had filed these documents with the DDA. These two documents were signed by Bhagwan Dass as handed over to him by his nephew. He never questioned Sh. Bhagwan Dass as to why he had put thumb impressions on the will dated 9.2.1981 whereas in the earlier letters Mark X & Y he has appended his signatures.
54 He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely in para 7 of his affidavit that since DDA asked him to submit the probate therefore he applied for probate. He denied the suggestion that he had already obtained Probate prior to 22.09.1982 when DDA asked him to submit the Probate. He denied the suggestion that he had concealed the will dated 9.2.81 in conspiracy with my brother in law Sh. Sukhbir Singh and M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 23/34 produced the will for the first time in the suit for partition in the year 2006. He denied the suggestion that he and Sukhbir Singh had malafide intention therefor Sukhbir Singh did not mention will 9.2.1981 in his plaint in the suit for partition between Sukhbir Singh and Jagdish Prasad. He denied the suggestion that the contents of para 6 of his affidavit are wrong as Sh. Bhagwan Dass had paid the money for the allotment of plot from his own funds. He denied the suggestion that the contents of para 8, 13, 14, of his affidavit are wrong and false.
55 Vide separate statement of Sh. Rai Singh Rana, respondent/non-applicant, he closed his evidence on 22.07.2016.
56 I have heard counsel for the applicant/petitioner Sh. Pankaj Vivek and Sh. D.R. Jain, counsel for non-applicant/ Rai Singh Rana and perused the judgments filed by the parties and my findings on issues is as follows:-
57 Issue No. 1 & 2The onus to prove the issue no. 1 & 2 is on the non- applicant Rai Singh Rana. The law is well settled that now Article 137 of Limitation Act is applicable for all the petitions filed under Indian Succession Act.
Before giving my findings on the above said issues, Let us peruse the law laid down by Apex Court. The question for consideration, is whether the petition for grant of Probate/ Letter of Administration is governed by the provision of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Come up in the case of "KUNVARJEET SINGH KHANDPUR VS. KIRANDEEP KUAR", 2008 SCC, Supreme Court of India, while answering whether Article of Limitation Act M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 24/34 applies to the application for probate held as under "The genesis of Article 137 of the Limitation Act can be traced from Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1959. The Limitation Act contains different periods for a specified application. Even in the Limitation Act of 1908 where there is no period provided for a specific application, a residuary clause is included providing limitation for other applications. Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 being the residuary clause contemplates the application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the schedule or by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was retained in the Limitation Act of 1963 with certain modification, which can be reasonably ascertained from the comparison of two provisions, which are depicted below:
"181. Application for which Three years when the right to period of limitation is pro-apply accrues.
Vided elsewhere in this schedule or by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.
137. Any other application for Three years when the which no period of right to apply accrues limitation is provided elsewhere in this Division."
Such distinction is well explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala SEB Vs.T.P. Kunhaliumma, reported in (1976)4 Supreme Court Cases 634 in these words:-
"18. The alteration of the division as well as the change in the collocation of words in Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 compared with Article 181 of the 1908 Limitation Act shown that applications contemplated under Article 137 are not applications confined to the Code of Civil Procedure. In the 1908 Limitation Act there was no division between applications in specified cases and other applications as in the 1963 Limitation Act. The word 'any other application' under Article 137 cannot be said on the principle of ejusdem generis to be applications under the Civil Procedure Code other than those mentioned in Part I of the third division. Any other application under Article 137 would be petition or any application under any Act. But it has to be an application to a Court for the reason that Sections 4 and 5 of the M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 25/34 1963 Limitation Act speak of expiry of prescribed period when court is closed and extension of prescribed period if the applicant or the appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application during such period.
22. The conclusion we reach is that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a Civil Court. With respect we differ from the view taken by the two-judge bench of this Court in Athani Municipal Council case2 and hold that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act is not confined to applications contemplated by or under the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition in the present case was to the District Judge as a court. The petition was one contemplated by the Telegraph Act for judicial decision. The petition is an application falling within the scope of Article 137 of the 1963 of the 1963 Limitation Act."
Thus, an application under any specified Act before the Civil Court is application conceived under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 19963 as the distinction, which was sought to be made under Artilce 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 have been obliterated by deletion and amendment of article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. it is no longer res integra that any other applications is not restricted to an application under the Code of Civil Procedure, but an application under special statue being filed before the Civil Court.
15 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, further in the case of KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA VS. RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA (2009) SCC, held that Article 137 of Limitation Act is applicable in case of Probate/ Letter of Administration but applicable as per judgment of in case "KUNVARJEET SINGH KHANDPUR VS. KIRANDEEP KUAR", 2008 SCC, (Supra) "16. Rejecting Mr. Dalpatrai's contention. I summarise my conclusion thus-
(a)under the Limitation Act no period is advisedly prescribed within which an application for probate, letters of administration or succession certificate must be made;
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 26/34
(b)the assumption that under Article 137 the right to apply necessarily accrues on the date of the death of the deceased, is unwarranted;
(c)Such an application is for the court's permission to perform a legal duty created by a will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the death of the deceased, as along as as the right to do so survive and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created remains to be executed;
(d)the right to apply would accrue when it becomes necessary to apply which may not necessarily be within 3 years from the date of the deceased's death.;
(e)delay beyond 3 years after the deceased's death would arouse suspicion and greater the delay, greater would be the suspicion;
(f)such delay must be explained, but cannot be equated with the absolute bar of limitation; and
(g) once execution and attestation are proved, suspicion of delay no longer operates."
Conclusion (b) is not correct while Conclusion (c) is the correct position of law.
58 Ld. Counsel for non-applicant Rai Singh Rana drawn the attention that present petition has been filed on 03.06.2009 after about 27 years of the grant of letter of administration. He contended that applicant Jagdish Prasad had full and complete knowledge of Will dated 09.02.1981 which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Meerut, UP whereby his deceased father late Sh. Bhagwan Dass bequeathed the plot No. 103, Block No. C- 6/B, Janak Puri, 165.211 Sq. Meter to the Rai Singh Rana.
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 27/34
59 He further contended that not only this the Jagdish
Prasad applicant is one of the attesting witness to the will. He further contended that in the DDA for mutation all the documents were filed by Sh. Rai Singh Rana and no objection and other requisite documents signed by Jagdish Prasad/applicant himself. He further contended that plea taken of the knowledge after the decision of the civil suit filed by Sukhbir Singh is an after thought. Even during the proceedings well in time applicant/ Jagdish has the knowledge of the will as well as of the Probate granted in favour of Rai Singh Rana. Therefore, the present revocation petition is barred by limitation as well as applicant is estoped now from his own acts and deeds.
60 On the other hand ld. Counsel Sh. Pankaj Vivek for the applicant/ Jagdish Prasad submitted that applicant Jagdish Prasad was residing in the Village Ram Nagar, District Meerut with his deceased father and Rai Singh Rana was residing in Delhi. The father of the Jagdish Prasad requested Rai Singh Rana to look after the allotment by the DDA and he got some papers signed from the deceased and Jagdish Prasad and the documents are forged by Sh, Rai Singh Rana. Sh. Rai Singh Rana also mis- lead about the plot. Sh. Jagdish Prasad also not known about any probate case and for the first time the alleged will dated 09.02.1981 was surface during the trial in the civil suit between Sukhbir Singh and Jagdish and application has been filed when the suit was dismissed by the then ld. ADJ Sh. Lal Singh on 29.04.2008. Therefore, the application for revocation of letter of administration is within limitation and the documents submitted by Sh. Rai Singh Rana before the DDA are forged and fabricated for mis-leading his deceased father.
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 28/34
61 ld. Counsel for the applicant further pointed out that
the said civil suit mentioned only the will dated 8.11.1977 and Sukhbir Singh also not disclosed about the will dated 09.02.1981 whereas the last will of the deceased father was 02.05.1981. Therefore, revocation application is within time and applicant cannot be stopped from filing the present application.
62 Ld. Counsel for the non-applicant Sh. Rai Singh Rana relied upon the judgments of S.A. Modi Vs Mrs. T.A. Rana and others, AIR 2004 Bombay 353, Smt. Ram Dulari and others Vs Maniram Ram Prasad Tiwari and others, AIR 2004 Bombay 359, Bibhuti Bhusan Mayur Vs Bhabesh Bhusan Mayur and others AIR 1982, Calcutta 374 63 Ld. counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Manibhai Amidas Patel and Another Vs Dayabhai Amaidas, ( 2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 154, Basanti Devi Vs Ravi Prakash Ram Prasad Jaiswal ( 2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 267, Paresh Chandra Majhi & Ors Vs Biswanath Majhi & Ors 2009 SCC Cal 1641.
64 I have considered the respective submissions of both the counsels. I have already discussed in detail all the testimony of Sh. Jagdish Prasad, applicant's witnesses as well as Sh. Rai Singh Rana, non applicant. The original record of Probate petition No. 239/81 titled Rai Singh Rana Vs State also summoned. The judgment of the civil suit No. 40/07 titled Sukhbir Singh Vs Jagdish Prasad filed on 15.10.98 and decided on 29.4.2008 also perused.
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 29/34
65 The documents of the judicial record established that
the probate petition filed by Sh. Rai Singh Rana on the basis of registered will of deceased Bagwan Dass before the Ld. District Judge on 04.09.1981. In the petition he has mentioned Jagdish Prasad one of the son of the deceased. The record shows that citation was published in daily newspaper in Urdu language. The original record further shows that Sh. Jagdish Prasad put in appearance through his counsel Sh. Lal Singh and NOC dated 25.11.1981 was filed which bears the signatures of Sh. Jagdish Prasad. Although as per order sheet relations were not served for 25.11.1981, however, order dated 23.02.1982 mentioned that relatives Sh. Sukhbir Singh and Sh. Jagdish Prasad were present in person and submitted that they have already submitted the NOC and accepted to be correct which was filed on their behalf by Sh. Lal Singh. The record established that Sh. Jagdish Prasad himself appeared before the Ld. District Judge on 23.02.1981 it suggest that he has full knowledge of Probate proceedings. Now he cannot retract against judicial record that he has no knowledge of probate proceedings.
66 Now the knowledge with regard to the will of his deceased father dated 09.02.1981 is concerned, the will is registered before the Sub-Registrar Meerut (U.P). The will is signed by Sh. Jagdish Prasad himself as a attesting witness. The registered will cannot be denied against the bald statement of Sh. Jagdish Prasad that he had gain the knowledge during the pendency of civil suit. Even for the argument sake it is believed that he gain the knowledge during the pendency of the above said civil suit with his brother Sukhbir Singh even then the suit was filed in the year 1998. The present revocation application M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 30/34 filed after 11 years. Further more there is affidavit of Sh. Jagdish Prasad dated 02.07.1982 submitted with the DDA office where he agreed to the will of his deceased father in favour of Sh. Rai Singh Rana and raised No Objection for transfer of the plot in the name of Sh. Rai Singh Rana.
67 Further more the construction of the said house as per testimony taken place for the relevant period where Sh. Jagdish Prasad was residing about two streets away from the plot in question. As per DDA documents the plot was mutated and lease was also in the name of Sh. Rai Singh Rana long back in the year 2001. The civil suit as mentioned above between his brother Sukhbir Singh is pertaining to some other properties and the Wills of 1977 and dated 3.5.1982 are silent about the Janakpuri plot property. It is pertinent to mentioned here that in the will dated 09.02.1981 deceased father had spell out the full particulars of Janak Puri plot then it is un-believable that in the will dated 02.05.1981 how there is no specific mention of Janak Puri plot. It established that in the will dated 02.05.1981 deceased did not include the Janak Puri plot but restricted his will with regard to Nangal Raya properties.
68 On the basis of my observation and discussion the present application for revocation of probate is hopelessly barred by limitation and an after thought. Sh. Jagdish Prasad, applicant, himself is a witness to the will and signatory to all the documents submitted before the DDA for transfer of the plot in the name of Sh. Rai Singh Rana and did not contest the probate petition and now challenged the letter of administration.
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 31/34
69 On the basis of above discussion both the above
issues are decided in favour of non-applicant Sh. Rai Singh Rana against applicant, Sh. Jagdish Prasad.
70 Issue No. 3The onus of this issue is on the applicant Sh. Jagish Prasad. Sh. Jagdish examined himself as AW-1 and one AW-2 Sh. Sant Ram, Assistant from the office of DDA. His testimony has been discussed in detail alongwith the cross-examination. The testimony established that he was resident of Ram Nagar with is father and used to come to Delhi to collect rent from the tenants of property bearing no. 1228 measure and 550 sq yards from Nagal Raya, New Delhi. He denied that due to the apprehension of cancellation of plot for non-payment Sh. Rai Singh took the loan and his father re-applied to Delhi Government for allotment and a plot No. 103, Block No. C-6/B, Janak puri was allotted. He had no knowledge in this regard. He denied all the suggestions with regard to the execution of the will. He also denied that all the payments were made by Sh. Rai Singh Rana. He also denied that the execution and registration of will on 09.2.1981 although he was one of the attesting witness. I have seen the signatures of Sh. Jagdish Prasad in the petition filed in the court. The signatures at the registered will and the signatures at the Vakalatnama of Lal Singh and signatures on the NOC before the Ld. District Judge. I do not find any differences or any iota of evidence they are not made by one person. The plea of Sh. Jagdish Prasad in this regard is bald and unbelievable. The judicial record and the record of the DDA office cannot be dis- believed in this regard. This plea is un-believable that he came to know about the allotment of the Janakpuri plot on 27.6.2006 M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 32/34 when he himself is the attesting witness to the will dated 02.05.1981. The plea and the testimony of Sh. Jagdish Prasad is full of concealing and suppression of material facts from the court.
71 All pleas of the applicant Jagdish Prasad are contrary to the judicial record and DDA record and seems to be after thought. It is not believable that a person who stood attesting witness and never raised any objection then how suddenly after about 27 years filed a revocation petition/application.
72 Another point raised by ld. Counsel for the applicant Sh. Jagdish Prahad that all the legal heirs are not impleaded before the Ld. District Judge. The sisters of Sukhbir Singh and Jagdish Prasad and their legal heirs were not impleaded. Firstly, Sh. Jagdish never took any objection in the probate petition in this regard, secondly the civil suit also established that where the other wills were challenged, they did not implead their deceased sisters or their Legal heirs. The contents of the will dated 09.02.1981 also suggest that sisters died long back. In my opinion now after about 27-28 years the plea has been raised when much water has been flown and Jagdish Prasad even not raised any objection with regard to the deceased sisters, I find no ground of revocation of letter of administration in the year 2017 after 35 years.
73 On the basis of above observation and discussion the issue no. 3 is decided against the applicant Sh. Jagdish Prshad and in favour of Non-applicant Sh. Rai Singh Rana.
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 33/34
Relief
74 In view of my findings on issue no. 1 to 3 the
revocation petition of the Probate of the Will dated 09.02.1981 granted by the court vide its order dated 03.05.1982 filed by the non-applicant Jagdish Prasad is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open (SANJAY KUMAR)
court on 11th April, 2017 ADJ-02 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 34/34
M No. 45/10/09 Rai Singh Rana Vs State 35/34