Qe of (cid:9) v. State & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Petition stands allowed in the above
Provisions considered
- Indian Succession Act, 1925 ss. 222, 232, 283
Judgment
deceased son late Shri Ashok Han. A citation was directed to be (cid:9) published in (cid:9) newspaper (cid:9) Statesmen' (cid:9) vide (cid:9) order (cid:9)
1.6.2001. (cid:9) The citation was duly published in (cid:9) issue of the (cid:9) "Statesmen" dated 15.9.2001, (cid:9) in terms of Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, (cid:9) 1925. Respondents (cid:9) 2 (cid:9) to (cid:9) 10 (cid:9) were (cid:9) represented (cid:9) through counsel and have filed the Vakalatnamas and (cid:9) writ- ten statements on record (cid:9) accepting the (cid:9) execution of the Will dated 10.8,1995, (cid:9) by the deceased (cid:9) Shri Bansi Lal. (cid:9) They have given their (cid:9) No Objection (cid:9) the (cid:9) grant (cid:9) of (cid:9) a probate in respect of (cid:9) the (cid:9) Will. Petitioner (cid:9) examined (cid:9) herself (cid:9)
5.12.2002. (cid:9) She (cid:9) has (cid:9) deposed on oath (cid:9) as (cid:9) to (cid:9) institution of the petition. (cid:9) She is the (cid:9) benefici- ary (cid:9) under (cid:9) the Will Ext.PW1/1. (cid:9) She has prayed (cid:9) the (cid:9) grant (cid:9) of a Probate. Affidavit filed (cid:9) by (cid:9) petitioner (cid:9) is Ext.PW2/1 wherein the value of (cid:9) immovable (cid:9) property, (cid:9) namely, the rear (cid:9) portion (cid:9) the first floor of premises No.95-A, (cid:9) Street (cid:9) No.4, Krishna (cid:9) Nagar, New Delhi, bequeathed by (cid:9) the (cid:9) de- ceased to her (cid:9) is given as Rs.6 lacs. The (cid:9) deceased (cid:9) expired (cid:9) on (cid:9)
10.1.1999. Petitioner also examined the attesting witness (cid:9) the (cid:9) Will, (cid:9) one Shri (cid:9) M.N.Sharma, (cid:9) Advocate. (cid:9) Shri Sharma (cid:9) has (cid:9) deposed on oath that the (cid:9) Will (cid:9) 2 •
Operative part
10.81995 ExtPW1/1 had been signed by the dc- ceased in his presence and in the presence of Shri Mahesh K,Chowdhry, Advocate and Shri Ajay Mehro- tra, Advocate, who all had signed in the presence of each other and the deceased. The said MN,Sharma also verified the petition affirming the attestation of the Will, 6 (cid:9) The report from the Valuation Officer has also been received. As per the report of the Tehsildar, lehail Hauz Khas, District Mehrauli the property which is the subject matter of the Will is assessed at Rs.5,50,000f-. Petitioner has also produced on record the Death certificate. 7 (cid:9) In view of the foregoing, the Will dated 10th Day of August, 1995, i.e. Ext.PW1/1 has been duly proved in accordance with law, The Will is a registered Will and it bequeaths property No.95-A, St. (cid:9) No ,4, Krishna Nagar, Now Delhi to the peti- tioner as a owner to deal with the same in whatev- er manner she likes. 8 (cid:9) A perusal of the Will shows that no Executor has been appointed under the Will. (cid:9) In these circumstances, in view of the bar contained in Section 222 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, providing that a probate can only be granted to an Executor appointed by the Will, petitioner not being the executor cannot be granted a Probate. '3 Oo However, it is within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to mould the relief. Accordingly, in terms of Section 232 of the Indian SUCCeSSIOn Act, I direct that petitioner he granted Instead a Letter of Adrriinistration with a copy of the 14111 annexed upon payment of the requisite court fees. 9 (cid:9) terms. Petition stands allowed in the above March 5/2003. (cid:9) anmohan SarinJ. v km S -1- ç r\ M L OT 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition stands allowed in the above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Succession Act, 1925 — ss. 222, 232, 283.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 01 Jun 2001. The bench was U I MAN M O HAN SARI N.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.