Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. To conclude, in view of the provisions of Section 41 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act and the aforesaid enunciation of the law by this Court and by the Supreme Court, the present suit is clearly maintainable. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on Section 266 of the Indian Succession Act is, in my view, entirely misplaced. A bare perusal of Section 266 shows that Section 266 deals with the District Judge's power as to grant of probate and letters of administration, but it is settled law that the grant of probate is not necessary in Delhi [See Behari Lal vs. Karam Chand, AIR 1968 Punjab 108, Aishwarya Dev Chand Katoch vs. T.N. Properties Pvt. Ltd., 133 (2006) Delhi Law Times 89 and Om Prakash Kohli vs. Rani Prakash Kohli, 2002 III AD (Delhi) 1083]. This apart, the reliance placed by the respondent's counsel on the case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (supra) is also misplaced. Admittedly in the instant case, the appellants are not claiming any right on the basis of any will and it is inconceivable that the appellants could have instituted a proceeding in the probate court for obtaining a negative declaration. Issues No.1 and 2 were, therefore, in my view, erroneously decided by the learned trial court. As a necessary consequence thereof, no findings were returned by the learned trial court on issues No.5, 6 and 7 and the matter was disposed of by holding that the appellants were not entitled either to the relief of declaration or permanent injunction or any other relief whatsoever. The suit of the appellants was thus dismissed as not maintainable.