Delhi District Court
Asha @ Ayesha vs State on 21 December, 2024
ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE
DLST010028522019
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh.
Revocation 4/19
FILING No. 1089/2019
CNR No. DLST01-002852-2019
In the matter of :-
Asha @ Aysha Siddiqui
D/o Shri Charan Singh
F-34, Tata Apartments
New Delhi-110019
.............Petitioner
Versus
1. State
2. Smt. Hirawati
W/o Shri Charan Singh
R/o House No. 31/A, Block-D,
Shiv Enclave,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.
.............Respondents
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.12.21
Revocation No.4/19 19:04:50 +0530
Page 1 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024
ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE
Date of Institution : 22.04.2019
Date of reserving the judgment : 02.12.2024
Date of pronouncement : 21.12.2024
Decision : Dismissed
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 263 (A) & (B) OF
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 READ WITH
SECTION 151 CPC
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the application filed by the applicant Smt. Asha @ Ayesha Siddiqui under Section 263 (a) & (b) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 151 CPC as well as application under Section 151 CPC to set aside the order dated 01.03.2002 passed in PC No. 75/2000.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 12.07.2001 passed by Sh. R.C. Jain, Ld. District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Letters of Administration in respect of Will dated 15.04.1965 of Late Sh. Maya Ram was granted in favour of Smt. Hirawati/respondent no.2 herein in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule-A as attached alongwith the petition. Thereafter, on 02.01.2002 an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was filed for amendment of the Schedule-A, which was allowed on Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
Revocation No.4/192024.12.21 19:05:03 +0530 Page 2 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE 01.03.2002 and Letters of Administration was granted on 14.12.2001 in respect of amended Schedule-A. 2.1. It is submitted that the Valuation Report of Er. B.P. Singh filed in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule A is the value as in 1965, showing the properties as agriculture. It is further submitted that it may be mentioned that on the date of filing of the petition for the Probate/Letter of Administration in December, 1999, the properties were no more agriculture as the whole Mehrauli Village area was urbanized way back in 1963 and of value more than crore of rupees. It is submitted that the valuation report in totally false and a fraud has been played upon the Court. Sh. Maya Ram died in the year 1965, leaving behind his four Class I legal heirs namely Smt. Chintawati (wife), Smt. Chandro (daughter), Smt Hirawati/respondent no.2 (daughter) and Sh.
Aik Sarup (son). At that time, it was not known that Sh. Maya Ram had left any Will and his properties were inherited by his aforesaid legal heirs equally i.e. 1/4 th share each. Smt. Chintawati, wife of Shri Maya Ram, who had inherited 1/4th share of Sh. Maya ram's property bequeathed her entire share and other properties of her share to the petitioner vide her Will dated 10.05.1990, in which respondent no. 2 is the one of the attesting witnesses. On the death of Smt. Chintawati in Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:05:12 +0530 Page 3 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE the year 1991, the petitioner became the sole owner of all the properties of Smt. Chintawati. It is further submitted that on 03.06.1998, the respondent No.2 and Smt. Chandro (daughters of Shri Maya Ram) jointly executed a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 03.06.1998 in favour of the petitioner. Smt. Chandro had also executed a registered Will dated 09.08.1996 in favour of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner became the owner of 3/4th share of the properties of Late Sh. Maya Ram on 03.06.1998. The remaining 1/4th share was in the name of Sh. Aik Sarup, son of Shri Maya Ram, who had been disappeared since 1972.
2.2. It is further submitted that probate proceedings were filed when the Will dated 15.04.1965 was discovered after 34 years of the death of Shri Maya Ram. The respondent No.2 has concealed from the court that 3/4th of all the immovable properties of Shri Maya Ram had been disposed of even by respondent No.2 herself and her sister Smt. Chandro by executing a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 03.06.1998 in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, an application for Probate or Letter of Administration with respect of 3/4th share of the estate cannot be entertained which was already disposed of by the Legal Heirs in 34 years after the death of Shri Maya Ram, not knowing the existence Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Revocation No.4/19 Date: 2024.12.21 19:05:20 +0530 Page 4 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE of any Will left by Shri Maya Ram. It is further submitted that it should have been informed to the Court that out of the estate of Late Shri Maya Ram, the properties were not available to be administered and the Probate or Letter of Administration should have been granted with respect to the estate which was required to be administered by her. However, this was not done. It is contended that after taking the Letter of Administration, the respondent No.2, with malafide intention to grab the properties which were not of Maya Ram nor was the Letter of Administration taken in respect of these property being House No. 298/4 and 318/4, Mehrauli, New Delhi, filed a suit for declaration, injunction, possession, damages and mesne profits against the petitioner in respect of the houses on 17.03.2009, in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi claiming to be the absolute owner of these two properties on the basis of Will dated 15.04.1965 of Late Sh. Maya Ram in favour of the respondent No.2, which was duly probated in the Probate Case No. 75/2000. 2.3. That the proceeding to obtain the Letter of Administration is defective in substance as the same is obtained on the false valuation report in respect of value of the properties as in 1965, whereas the same should have been of 2001 when the petition was filed. The Letter of Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Revocation No.4/19 Date: 2024.12.21 19:05:27 +0530 Page 5 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE Administration had been obtained by the respondent No.2 fraudulently by making false suggestion or by concealing from the court something material to the case, hence, the same is liable to be revoked or annulled under Section 263 (a) & (b) of Indian Succession Act, 1925.
REPLY
3. Reply to the application was filed on behalf of respondent no.2 and all the averments of the revocation petition were denied through it.
4. An application under Section 151 CPC was also filed in the present revocation petition by the applicant Asha @ Ayesha Siddiqui to set aside the order dated 01.03.2002 vide which an amendment application and amended Schedule A in PC 75/2000 were allowed and also for direction to the petitioner to surrender the Letters of Administration with amended Schedule A as granted on 22.03.2002. However, subsequently through one another application under Section 151 CPC on behalf of Asha @ Ayesha Siddiqui for correction of the prayer clause of abovesaid earlier application under Section 151 CPC was filed on 02.05.2024. Through this subsequent application it was prayed that the prayer clause of the abovesaid earlier application under Section 151 CPC may be substituted with the amended prayer clause in the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.21 19:05:40 +0530 Revocation No.4/19 Page 6 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE subsequent application. Vide this subsequent application it was prayed that the petitioner may be directed to make compliance of order dated 03.01.2002 in toto and pass an order disallowing the petitioner (Hirawati) to delete the mentioning of 1/4th share in the properties in question through her amended Schedule A of the properties. The subsequent application for change in prayer clause was allowed vide order dated 05.07.2024.
5. I have heard the arguments of Ld. counsels for both the parties.
6. It is a matter of record that no issue was framed in the present case and also no evidence was led by any of the parties in the present case. Perusal of order dated 14.05.2019 shows that Ld. counsel for the petitioner/non applicant submitted that the matter could be heard forthwith without any evidence. Thereafter, the final arguments were led in the present matter without any framing of issues as well as without leading the evidence by any of the parties before the Ld. Predecessor Courts. The matter was already at the stage of final arguments at the time when the undersigned assumed the charge of this court. However, in exercise of my power under Section 14 Rule 5 CPC, a formal issue is hereby framed as under:Digitally signed by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:05:47 +0530 Page 7 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE "1. Whether the applicant is entitled to seek revocation of the probate which was granted on 12.07.2001?"
FINDINGS Issue No.1: Whether the applicant is entitled to seek revocation of the probate which was granted on 12.07.2001?
AND Application under Section 151 CPC to set aside the order dated 01.03.2002 passed in PC No. 75/2000.
7. The applicant's narrative is that the Hon'ble Court of Sh. R.C. Jain, Ld. District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated 12.07.2001 granted Letters of Administration in respect of Will dated 15.04.1965 of Late Sh. Maya Ram in favour of Smt. Hirawati (respondent no.2 herein) vide order dated 12.07.2001 in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule-A as attached alongwith the petition itself. Thereafter, Letters of Administration was granted on 14.12.2001 as per Schedule-A. However, on 02.01.2002, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was filed by Smt. Hirawati/respondent no.2 for amendment of Schedule A alongwith amended Schedule-A. Vide order dated 01.03.2002, this application was allowed seeking amendment in Schedule of properties Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Revocation No.4/19 Date: 2024.12.21 19:05:56 +0530 Page 8 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE attached with the Letters of Administration vide order dated 12.07.2001. It has been contended that Sh. Maya Ram expired in the year 1965 leaving behind four Class I Legal Heirs and at that time it was not known that Sh. Maya Ram had left any Will and his properties were inherited by his legal heirs equally i.e. 1/4th share by each. Smt. Chintawati W/o Late Sh. Maya Ram, who had inherited 1/4th share of Sh. Maya Ram's property bequeathed her entire share and other properties of her share to the petitioner vide Will dated 10.05.1990 in favour of Ms. Asha @ Aysha Siddiqui/applicant herein and on the death of Smt. Chintawati in the year 1991, the applicant became the sole owner of all the properties of Smt. Chintawati. That on 03.06.1998, Smt. Hirawati/respondent no.2 herein and Smt. Chandro (daughters of Sh. Maya Ram) jointly executed a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 03.06.1998 in favour of the applicant/petitioner. Smt. Chandro had also executed a registered Will in the year 1996 in favour of Asha. Hence, the applicant became the owner of total 3/4th share of the properties of Late Sh. Maya Ram on 03.06.1998. The remaining 1/4th share was in the name of Sh. Aik Sarup, son of Late Sh. Maya Ram, who had been disappeared since 1972. It has been further contended that Will dated Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:06:06 +0530 Page 9 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE 15.04.1965 of Late Sh. Maya Ram in favour of Smt. Hirawati/respondent no.2 herein was discovered in the year 1999 and the probate proceedings were filed and the impugned order dated 12.07.2001 was passed while granting Letters of Administration in respect of the Will. However, Smt. Hirawati had concealed from the court that 3/4th share of all the immovable properties of Late Sh. Maya Ram had already been disposed of in the abovesaid manner in favour of Smt. Asha/applicant herein. Therefore, an application for probate or Letters of Administration with respect of 3/4 th share of the estate cannot be entertained which was already disposed of by the LRs of Late Sh. Maya Ram in the previous orders after his death and at the time when existence of any Will left by Sh. Maya Ram was not in their knowledge.
8. It has been contended that it should have been informed to the court that out of the estate of Late Sh. Maya Ram, the aforesaid properties were not available to be administered and Letters of Administration should have been granted only with respect to the estate which was required to be administered by her. However, this was not done. It has further been contended that the valuation report in respect of the properties mentioned in the abovesaid Schedule-A was filed as per value in the year 1965 while showing the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
Revocation No.4/19 2024.12.21
19:06:15 +0530
Page 10 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024
ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE
properties as agriculture. However, on the date of filing of the petition for the probate/Letters of Administration in December, 1999, the properties were not mere agriculture as the whole Mehrauli village area was urbanized way back in 1963 and of value more than crore of rupees. Therefore, the valuation report is totally false and a fraud has been played upon the court. It has been contended that as the proceedings to obtain the probate/Letters of Administration is defective in substance as the same was obtained on the false valuation report in respect of the value of the properties as in the year 1965 whereas the same should have been of the year 2001, when the petition was filed and further the Letters of Administration had been obtained fraudulently by making false suggestion or by concealing from the court something material to the case. Hence, the same is liable to be revoked or annulled under Section 263 (a) and (b) of Indian Succession Act, 1925.
9. No evidence by any of the party was ever led in the present case as already discussed above. However, on 14.10.2024, an application filed on behalf of Hirawati/respondent no.2 herein under Section 151 CPC to place on record the copy of affidavit of evidence dated 27.05.2008 in IPA 22/2003 before the Hon'ble High Court of Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:06:26 +0530 Page 11 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE Delhi and copy of plaint being suit No. 39/2008 titled as Smt. Hirawati Through Her Attorney Smt. Asha @ Ayesha Siddiqui Vs. Mr. Arun Kapoor was allowed and these documents were exhibited as Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 respectively.
10. On perusal of para 6 of Ex.A-1 dated 27.05.2008 i.e. affidavit of evidence of Ms. Asha @ Aysha Siddiqui/applicant herein in IPA 22/2003, it is found to be deposed that "Smt. Chandro and Smt. Chintawati executed a Will in her favour under the wrong impression that they had a share in the property because the Will of Maya Ram was not in their knowledge at that time. As already submitted above, only the plaintiff was owner of the properties left by Sh. Maya Ram by virtue of Will of Sh. Maya Ram for which the probate was granted in favour of the plaintiff.". It is also found to be deposed in para 7 by Ms. Asha that Smt. Chandro was not the owner of the property in respect of which the alleged sale deed has been got executed and as such Smt. Chandro could not have sold the said land and the alleged sale deed is void ab initio. The document remained undisputed and this document was found to be exhibited as Ex.PW1/A on 11.09.2008 in IPA 22/2003 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. These are clear admissions of Ms. Asha/applicant Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:Revocation No.4/19
2024.12.21 19:06:34 +0530 Page 12 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE herein regarding the ownership status of Smt. Chandro Devi (daughter of Late Sh. Maya Ram) and Smt. Chintawati (wife of Late Sh. Maya Ram). It has clearly been admitted that they executed a Will in favour of Ms. Asha @ Ayesha Siddiqui under wrong impression that they had a share in the property because the Will of Sh. Maya Ram was not in their knowledge at that time. It was further clearly admitted that only Smt. Hirawati/plaintiff therein was owner of the properties left by Sh. Maya Ram by virtue of his Will for which the probate has been granted in her favour. These admissions were made in the year 2008.
11. Para 3 of the abovesaid document Ex.A-2 shows that the suit having case titled Hirawati Vs. Arun Kumar was filed by Smt. Hirawati/respondent no.2 herein through her daughter and general attorney Ms. Asha @ Ayesha Siddiqui /applicant herein. The plaint has been found to be signed and verified on 09.01.2008 by Asha Siddiqui as attorney of the plaintiff. Affidavit dated 09.01.2008 filed alongwith the plaint is also of Mrs. Asha @ Ayesha Siddiqui. In para 3 of the plaint, it has been mentioned that Sh. Maya Ram died on 07.12.1965 and he also left a Will in favour of the plaintiff/Hirawati but the plaintiff was not aware of that Will at that time and the plaintiff and her sister Chandro and Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:06:40 +0530 Page 13 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE their mother Chintawati thought themselves as joint owners of the property left by Late Sh. Maya Ram as surviving legal heirs and tried to manage the suit property left behind by Sh. Maya Ram for some time. All these abovesaid submissions in document Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 shows that before discovery of Will dated 15.04.1965 in favour of Smt. Hirawati, all the Class I legal heirs of Late Sh. Maya Ram managed/disposed off the property under impression that they were joint owners of the properties left by Late Sh. Maya Ram.
12. It is settled law that on the death of the testatrix the bequeathed property vests in the beneficiary.
13. The bare reading of Section 211 shows that the property vests in the executors or administrators by virtue of the Will and not by virtue of probate or Letters of Administration. The Will gives property to the executor/administrator. The grant of probate is only method by which law provides for establishing the Will. The vesting is not for beneficial interest of the property but also for the purpose of representation.
14. In Meyappa Chetty Vs. Supramanian Chetty reported in 43 Indian Appeals 113, the privy counsel has held that the executor derives his title from the Will and not from the probate. The personal property of the testator vests in the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:06:48 +0530 Page 14 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE executor on the death of the testator.
15. Accordingly, any personal property of the testator vests in the executor/administrator on the time of death of the testator and not from the time when probate/Letters of Administration was granted. The probate of Will dated 15.04.1965 was granted on 12.07.2001. This grant of probate was only a method by which the law provides the establishing the Will and property vested in the administrator by virtue of the Will dated 15.04.1965 and not by virtue of Letters of Administration. However, no evidence was led by the applicant to prove the Will dated 10.05.1990 of Smt. Chintawati and relinquishment deed dated 03.06.1998 jointly executed by Smt. Chandro and Smt. Hirawati/respondent no.2 herein in favour of the petitioner. Even if these documents are considered as genuine then also the Will of Smt. Chintawati and Smt. Chandro while bequeathing their respective shares in the property in question in favour of the applicant herein do not convey any title of the land in question in favour of the applicant as they cannot convey a better title than the title they themselves had. The Will dated 15.04.1965 of Late Sh. Maya Ram has not been disputed by the applicant. Judicial notice of the fact that one revocation petition having PC no. 7/17 in case titled 'Asha @ Ayesha Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:06:56 +0530 Page 15 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE Vs. State & Ors' has been dismissed by this court on
16.11.2024, through which revocation of order dated 12.07.2001 sought on the basis of subsequent Will dated 08.10.1965 allegedly executed by Late Sh. Maya Ram in favour of his wife/Smt. Chintawati may be taken. It was concluded in PC 7/17 by this court that the applicant herein failed to prove the Will dated 08.10.1965 of Late Sh. Maya Ram. Accordingly, at the time when these Wills and Relinquishment Deed were executed, neither Smt. Chintawati and Smt. Chandro had any title qua the land in question. Accordingly, any of the documents executed by them regarding transfer of their interest in the abovesaid property cannot be relied upon.
16. Perusal of the Relinquishment Deed dated 03.06.1998 shows that it was jointly executed by Smt. Chandro and Smt. Hirawati in favour of Ms. Asha/applicant herein. It has been mentioned in the second page of the Deed that Smt. Chinta Wati wife of Late Shri Maya Ram was the absolute owner of the following Agricultural land and thereafter the description of the land has been mentioned and thereafter on the same page the details of legal heirs i.e. Smt. Chandro and Smt. Heera, left behind on her death has been mentioned. On page No.3 of the Deed, it has been mentioned that the Releasors Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:07:02 +0530 Page 16 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE (Chandro and Hirawati) agreed to release, relinquish, disclaim and give up all their rights, titles and interest in the said agricultural land in favour of the Releasee (Asha) absolutely and forever. Here word 'said agricultural land' has been used and immediately before this paragraph the details of the agricultural land of which Smt. Chintawarti was stated to be the absolute owner has been mentioned in the Deed. It means here the Deed is only regarding respective shares of Smt. Chandro and Smt. Hirawati being their Class I legal heirs of Smt. Chintawati in her property as stated at Page No.2 of the Deed itself on her death. It nowhere mentions their any other property apart from their abovesaid shares in the property of Smt. Chintawati of which as per deed they were absolute owner. When the alleged Will dated 15.04.1965 of Late Sh. Maya Ram in favour of Smt. Chintawati has not found to be proved in PC 7/17, the same cannot be relied upon in favour of Smt. Chintawati to show her title over the property of Late Sh. Maya Ram as Letters of Administration has already been granted to Smt. Hirawati on Will dated 15.04.1965. So any other remaining legal heirs of Late Sh. Maya Ram cannot claim their shares in the property of Late Sh. Maya Ram because Hindu Succession Act 1956 provides about the notional partition of the immovable Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:07:09 +0530 Page 17 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE property only if a male Hindu dies intestate. It is not the case herein that Maya Ram died intestate. The proved Will of Late Sh. Maya Ram was found to be executed in favour of Smt. Hirawati. In view of this proved Will, Smt. Hirawati derives her title from the Will and not from the Letters of Administration qua bequeathed property of Late Sh. Maya Ram. In view of the abovesaid discussion and the case laws, the property of Late Sh. Maya Ram vests in Smt. Hirawati on the death of Sh. Maya Ram. Sh. Maya Ram expired on 07.12.1965 and since then, the property vests in Smt. Hirawati. Accordingly, at the time of execution of the relinquishment deed or execution of Will by Smt. Chintawati or execution of Will by Smt. Chandro, none of the executant had valid title so these documents can be considered as void ab initio regarding the transfer of title. Accordingly, the applicant's contention that 3/4th share of all the immovable property of Late Sh. Maya Ram had been disposed off in favour of Ms. Asha @ Ayesha/applicant herein is not maintainable.
17. At first when there was no such valid disposing of the 3/4th share then no question of concealment arises. Secondly, the probate petition in PC 75/2000 is found to be filed by the petitioner Smt. Hirawati through her attorney Smt. Asha @ Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:07:17 +0530 Page 18 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE Ayesha Siddiqui i.e. applicant herself. The petition bears the signature and verification of Asha @ Ayesha Siddiqui. The affidavit alongwith the petition is also of Asha @ Ayesha Siddiqui. When the applicant was herself the person who filed this petition on affidavit in the name of petitioner then even if any concealment arises then the buck stops on the applicant itself and to nobody else.
18. The applicant has also contended that subsequently Smt. Hirawati filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in PC 75/2000 for amendment in Schedule-A as annexed with the Letters of Administration granted on 12.07.2001. Applicant Asha @ Ayesha Siddiqui had also filed an application under Section 151 CPC in the present revocation petition to set aside the order dated 01.03.2002 passed in PC 75/2000 vide which the abovesaid amendment application filed by Hirawati was allowed and it was ordered that amendment in the judgment and Schedule of properties as annexed with the Letters of Administration be made as per the amended Schedule of properties as filed alongwith the amendment application. It has been argued on behalf of applicant Asha @ Ayesha Siddiqui that the amendment was sought on account of typographical mistakes and it is clear from the amended Schedule-A as filed alongwith the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:07:25 +0530 Page 19 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE amendment application that the amended Schedule changes the share of Hirawati as mentioned in the earlier filed Schedule of which the Letters of Administration was initially sought and was granted vide order dated 12.07.2001. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that amended Schedule- A changes the share of the property by deleting 1/4 th share of which no prayer also had been made in the body of the application for amendment. It has further been contended that as Smt. Asha/applicant herein was entitled for 3/4th share of the properties of Late Sh. Maya Ram in the abovesaid manner, the applicant herein could have been only entitled through the Will dated 15.04.1965 of Sh. Maya Ram for 1/4 th share of the property.
19. There is no dispute that Late Sh. Maya Ram bequeathed his complete property as mentioned in the amended Schedule in favour of Smt. Hirawati vide Will dated 15.04.1965.
20. It is also settled position of law that the jurisdiction of a probate Court is limited only to consider the genuineness of a Will. A question of title arising under the act cannot be gone into the proceedings and construction of a Will relating to the right, title and interest of any other person is beyond the domain of the Probate Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:07:33 +0530 Page 20 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE India in judgment titled Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon Vs. Hardayal Singh Dhillon & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4890/2007 decided on 12.10.2007, while relying upon the judgments titled as Cheeranjilal Shrilal Goenka Vs. Jasjit Singh & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 507 has held that the Court of probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last Will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution, the testator had sound disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the purview of the Probate Court. Therefore, the only issue in probate proceedings relates to the genuineness and due execution of the Will.
21. Accordingly, the contention of applicant that probate or Letters of Administration with respect to 3/4 th share of the estate cannot be entertained which was already disposed of by the legal heirs in 34 years after the death of Sh. Maya Ram, not known the existence of any Will of Late Sh. Maya Ram is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the probate court would not go into the question of title. It is sufficient if application for Letters of Administration alleges that there exists a property to be disputed and he is entitled to whole part of it. It is not necessary for court to decide what assets Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:07:38 +0530 Page 21 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE the applicant for letters of administration would get.
22. It has also been argued by the applicant that valuation report in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule-A is the value as in the year 1965, showing the property as agriculture. However, the whole Mehrauli village was urbanized way back in the year 1963 and properties were no more agriculture. Therefore, valuation report is totally false and a fraud has been played upon the court.
23. Perusal of the record shows that in PC 75/2000 State was also a party. It is not the case of the applicant that State was not served in the petition. The petition was filed by the applicant herein on behalf of the Smt. Hirawati as discussed above. Moreover, not only the Letters of Administration gave on 14.12.2001 by Ld. District Judge, Delhi as per Schedule-A was received by the applicant herein but also the Letters of Administration issued on amended Schedule was also received by the applicant herein in the capacity of GPA Holder for Smt. Hirawati. The receiving of Letters of Administration as abovestated by the applicant herself is not disputed, so the applicant cannot claim ignorance regarding any fraud, if any, was played upon the court on the date when she received the Letters of Administration on amended Schedule in her capacity of GPA. Admittedly, no valuation Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:07:52 +0530 Page 22 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE report was ever filed on behalf of the State in the present case and accordingly Ld. District Judge considered the valuation report filed on behalf of the petitioner therein. No other evidence was led to prove that valuation report was filed fraudulently or the valuation report was not correct.
24. Ld. counsel for Smt. Hirawati argued that Smt. Chandro had already filed her No Objection for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of Will dated 15.04.1965 in PC 75/2000, hence, after her death it was not mandatory to brought on record her legal heirs and he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Tribhuvan Nath Puri And Anr. Vs State , (2008) 104, DRJ 233 on 2 January, 1995, wherein it has been held as under:
"In view of the fact that despite having been served, Ms. Subbashni Abrol-respondent No.3 failed to enter appearance, she ought to have been proceeded against ex-parte immediately thereafter. It appears that the said formal order was not passed at the relevant time on account of oversight. The fact that she expired subsequently in January, 1986, could not be a ground to direct the petitioners to bring on record her LRs as she herself chose to stay away from the proceedings after being served during her life time. Thus, having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the petitioners by Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:Revocation No.4/19
2024.12.21 19:07:59 +0530 Page 23 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE holding that merely because the LRs of Ms. Subbashni Abrol- respondent No.3 were not brought on record, the petition cannot be held to be legally not maintainable."
25. Para 3 of the order dated 01.03.2002 of Ld. District Judge Delhi in PC 75/2000 shows that while deciding the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, it has been mentioned that Ld. District Judge heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner and had gone through the record of the case. It is further mentioned in the order that error appeared to be clerical and typographical and there being no opposition, the application in hand deserved to be allowed and application was accordingly allowed. When it has been mentioned in the order itself that Ld. Judge had gone through the record of the case, then it means the Schedule-A, amended Schedule and valuation report as well as the fact that the LRs of Smt. Chandro Devi had not been served on the amendment application were considered by Ld. District Judge by applying the judicial mind. So when the documents were gone through by Ld. District Judge and a reasoned order was passed, then it cannot be said that a fraud was committed on the court. This order was not challenged in appeal and this court does not sit in appeal over the findings Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:08:05 +0530 Page 24 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE of Ld. District Judge.
26. In case titled Mohd. Usman (Deceased) Thr. L.Rs And Others Vs. State And Another, FAO 294/2010 decided on 17.02.2011, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under:
"Thus, on all counts, the revocation petition filed by the Respondent was neither bona fide nor maintainable and was also barred by limitation. The learned ADJ in the impugned order has simply gone with the presumption that a fraud was played upon the court when the letter of administration were obtained and, therefore, the limitation could not have been taken as a defence. However, the ld. ADJ has not considered the fact of the Respondent having full knowledge about the grant of probate in the year 1989. The ld. ADJ has also not considered the effect of non-impleadment of the L Rs, one of the sons of the deceased Khwaja Sayeed-uddin to the probate petition. The ld.ADJ has also not considered the effect of such omission to the grant of probate petition. Even though, the ld. ADJ has taken note of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act to make out a case for the reason to bring her petition for revocation for just cause but there is no substantiation as to how, the Respondent gets a locus standi to claim that she was entitled to seek revocation of the probate petition for just cause in this case."Digitally signed by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.21 19:08:11 +0530 Revocation No.4/19 Page 25 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE
27. Thus, in view of Mohd. Usman case (supra), in the present case also on all counts, the revocation petition filed by the applicant can neither be said to be bonafide nor maintainable and is also barred by limitation. However, it is correct that in case where a fraud was played on court when the Letters of Administration was obtained and the limitation could have been taken as defence. But the fact that in the present case, the applicant herein had full knowledge about the grant of Letters of Administration on Schedule-A in the year 2001 and on amended Schedule in the year 2002, the applicant cannot be allowed to abuse the process of law while filing the revocation petition after 17 years once she had knowledge about the same in the year 2001-02 itself.
Accordingly, in my considered opinion, the present petition is also barred by limitation.
28. In view of the abovesaid discussion and settled legal position and considering that no evidence was led by the applicant, I am of the considered opinion that applicant is not entitled to seek revocation of the probate which was granted on 12.07.2001. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided against the applicant.
Relief
29. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the present Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.21 Revocation No.4/19 19:08:19 +0530 Page 26 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024 ASHA @ AYESHA VS. STATE revocation petition as well as application under Section 151 CPC are hereby dismissed.
30. Main case file bearing PC No. 75/2000 in case title 'Hirawati Vs. State' be returned back to the concerned Record Room.
Pronounced in the open Court Digitally signed by on this 21st Day of December, 2024 YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.21 19:08:25 +0530 (DR. YADVENDER SINGH) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI Revocation No.4/19 Page 27 of 27 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/21.12.2024