Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. A suit for dissolution of the partnership was filed subsequently bearing No. 424/1981 where the petitioners were parties. This partnership deed, as stated above, was executed in view of the Will dated 18.09.1978. All the parties in the suit made a statement admitting that Shri Joginder Paul Suri, HUF, had succeeded to the share of Late Shri Mela Ram which had in fact devolved upon the said Shri Joginder Paul Suri on the basis of the Will dated 18.09.1978. A preliminary decree for dissolution was also passed in the said suit, on the statements of the partners, by the Court on 28.09.1981 and none of the partners have challenged the said statements thereafter. The petitioners herein had filed IA No. 1858/2002 in the said suit for modification of the preliminary decree on the basis that the petitioners had come to know about one registered Will dated 26.12.1974, and thus sought modification of the preliminary decree in terms of the said Will. This application was however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in terms of the order dated 19.09.2002. An appeal was also filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the said order being FAO (OS) 376/2002 which was also dismissed in liming by the order dated 10.01.2003. The important aspect emphasised is that while dismissing the application the learned Single Judge of this Court had held that even if the registered Will dated 26.12.1974 propounded by the petitioners herein was taken as having executed, stood superseded by the subsequent Will dated 18.09.1978 which was accepted and admitted by the petitioners herein by relying upon the partnership deed dated 29.12.1978 in which the Will dated 18.09.1978 had been referred to. The petitioners were held as being estopped from saying that the subsequent Will was forged and manipulated document as all the partners jointly pleaded and relied upon on the said Will for the last 20 years. The petitioners are thus stated to have no cause of action to file the petition.

15. The petitioners do not dispute the contents of the order dated 19.09.2002 in IA no. 1858/2002 which are as under :

"After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the application filed by the applicants-defendants is frivolous on the face of it and merely a dilatory tactic for the reason that a prior Will dated 27.12.1974, even if registered, stood superseded by the subsequent Will dated 18.09.1978 which was admitted and acted upon by the applicants. In the application, the applicants did not plead even the Will dated 18.09.1978 was a forged or fabricated document but after the reply filed by defendants No. 2 and 5 they took a plea in the rejoinder that the Will dated 18.09.1978 appeared to be a manipulated document. This plea is an after-thought only. After admitting the Will dated 18.09.1978 in the partnership deed dated 29.12.1978, on the basis of which the preliminary decree was passed on 20.08.1981, and without raising any objection against the Will dated 18.09.1978 the applicants-defendants are estopped from saying that the said Will appears Page 2425 to be a forged and manipulated document. The fact that the applicants-defendants have filed proceedings for the grant of probate of the Will dated 26.12.1974 is also no ground for tinkering with the preliminary decree dated 20.08.1981. Defendants No. 3 and 4 and defendant No. 2 and 5 belong to same family. They all have been jointly pleading and relying upon the Will dated 18.09.1978 for the last over 20 years and as such, it is now too late in the day for defendants No. 3 & 4 to express doubts against the said Will and claim redefining of their shares in the preliminary decree dated 20.08.1981.