Delhi District Court
(Pc No.144/07) (Avtar Singh vs . State) on 20 October, 2007
(PC No.144/07) (Avtar Singh vs. State)
: 1:
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVINDER DUDEJA
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI.
PC No.144/2007
Date of institution : 15.5.1992
Date on which the judgment was reserved for : 28.9.2007
Shri Avtar Singh,
S/o Sh. Ram Gopal,
R/o A-105, Radhey Sham Park,
Parvana Road,
Delhi. ............ Petitioner.
Versus
State. ............ Respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of probate of Will dated 10.11.1982 executed by late Shri Dharam Chand, son of Shri Har Saran Dass. Briefly stated, the facts as stated in the petition are that Shri Dharam Chand was the owner of plot bearing No.C-70, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, measuring 800 sq. yds. (New No.G-20, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi). He expired on 5.7.1983. During his life time, he executed a Will dated 10.11.1982 thereby bequeathing the aforesaid plot to the petitioner. Petitioner filed an affidavit to the effect that he is the only legal heir of late Shri Dharam Chand and there is no other legal heir of the property of late Shri (PC No.144/07) (Avtar Singh vs. State) : 2: Dharam Chand.
2. Petition was allowed by the then learned District Judge vide judgment dated 5.1.1993.
3. An application was filed under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of the grant of letter of administration by Smt. Leelawati and Smt. Nirmal Verma. Smt. Leelawati claimed herself to be the wife of deceased Shri Dharam Chand while Smt. Nirmal Varma claimed herself to be widow of Shri Vinod Kant Varma, son of Shri Dharam Chand. Vide order dated 4.11.996 the revocation application was allowed by my learned Predecessor. Petitioner was directed to return the letter of administration issued to him in pursuance of judgment dated 5.1.1993. He was given an opportunity to prove the Will in accordance with the law. The Objector was given liberty to file objections/ written statement.
4. Objections were filed by Smt. Nirmal Varma, the widow of son of the deceased. In her reply/ objections, she has challenged the Will stating that the same is a forged and fabricated document. She has stated that the Will does not bear the signature of late Shri Dharam Chand. She has also challenged the death certificate of Shri Dharam Chand filed by the petitioner denying that Shri Dharam Chand expired on 5.7.1983. According to her, Shri Dharam Chand expired on (PC No.144/07) (Avtar Singh vs. State) : 3: 15.6.1990, Patiala (Punjab) leaving behind his widow Smt. Leelawati and son Sh. Vinod Kant Varma and two daughters namely Bina Kohli and Smt. Kiran Varma. Shri Vinod Kant Varma has also expired on 4.10.1990 leaving behind his widow Smt. Nirmal Varma and three daughters namely Ritu Verma, Nitu Verma and Gitu Verma. It has been stated that Smt. Leelawati expired on 8.2.1996. It is also stated that the petitioner had tried to take forcible possession of the premises. The premises was sealed under Section 145 Cr.PC during the life time of Shri Dharam Chand. The possession was restored to Shri Dharam Chand through his attorney Shri W.K. Malik by the order of the then SDM dated 4.5.1990. It has been further stated that the lease deed of the property has been mutated in the name of Smt. Leelawati and others and house tax is being paid by the Objector.
5. Petitioner filed reply to objections reiterating the averments which he has made in his petition. It has been stated that the objections are time barred and that the objector has no right and title over the property in any manner whatsoever and that the objector only wants to extort money from him. It has also been stated that the objections have become infructuous as the petitioner has already sold out the property. He has also stated that Shri Dharam Chand had died issueless and had not left behind any other legal heir. It has been stated that the mutation has been obtained by the objector by fraud and misrepresentation.
(PC No.144/07) (Avtar Singh vs. State) : 4:
6. Vide order dated 12.5.1998 my learned Predecessor framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the Will dated 10.11.1982 propounded by the petitioner is the last and genuine Will of deceased Sh. Dharam Chand, son of Lala Har Saran Dass and if so was it duly executed by him in sound disposing mind?
(2) Relief.
7. Petitioner did not lead any evidence despite the grant of several opportunities. Eventually, his evidence was closed by my learned Predecessor vide order dated 9.8.1999. After closure of the petitioner evidence, the case was adjourned for respondent evidence. The case was dismissed in default vide order dated 3.12.2002 passed by my learned Predecessor, petitioner filed an application for restoration of the petition. Objector was served by publication in newspaper, but no one appeared on behalf of the Objector. The restoration application was allowed and the petition was restored.
8. Arguments have been heard from the learned Counsel of petitioner. It has been argued by the learned Counsel of petitioner that the Objector has not led any evidence and, therefore, the order dated 4.11.96 stands vacated and the evidence which was led by the (PC No.144/07) (Avtar Singh vs. State) : 5: petitioner before the revocation order dated 4.11.96 can be read in evidence to prove the Will.
9. The effect of order dated 4.11.96 is that the letter of administration granted vide order dated 5.1.93 has been revoked. Order dated 4.11.96 is not an interim order which can be vacated. It was a final order thereby revoking the grant of letter of administration. Issues were framed subsequently on 12.5.98. No evidence has been led after the framing of issues. The evidence, which was recorded prior to framing of issues has been rendered useless and cannot be relied upon in proof of the Will. The onus to prove the Will was on the petitioner. Petitioner has failed to examine any witness to prove the Will dated 10.11.1982. Will dated 10.11.1982 has thus not been proved. Issue No.1 is accordingly decided against the petitioner. RELIEF
10. In view of my findings on issue no.1, petition is dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open (RAVINDER DUDEJA)
Court on 20.10.2007 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:
DELHI.