Abhinav Bhargav @ Abhishek Bhargav v. General Public & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Succession Act, 1925 s. 276
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** L.N.Mittal, J.(Oral) CM No.74-CII of 2012 For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 64 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. FAO No.18 of 2012 This is first appeal filed by Abhinav Bhargav @ Abhishek Bhargav, whose probate petition filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for probate of the Will dated 13.06.2008 allegedly executed by the appellant's father Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, has been dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge, Ambala vide impugned judgment dated 08.06.2011 for want of territorial jurisdiction. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case filed. Counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was having fixed place of residence at Ambala and therefore, Court at FAO No.18 of 2012 -2- Ambala has territorial jurisdiction to try the probate petition. The contention cannot be accepted. The deceased was employed as Lecturer in College at Fatehabad and was obviously residing there. He had also a house at Hisar. His service benefits are to be paid by the college located at Fatehabad. The deceased had no property in District Ambala but had property in District Fatehabad and District Hisar. The deceased was also residing in Fatehabad and Hisar and not in Ambala. As per conveyance deed marked 'E', house at Ambala was of mother of the deceased and not of the deceased himself. The deceased died in hospital at AIIMS, New Delhi. Merely because the deceased was cremated at Ambala would by itself not be sufficient to conclude that he was having fixed place of residence at Ambala. For the reasons aforesaid, the trial court has rightly held that Court at Ambala has no territorial jurisdiction to try the probate petition. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. March 06, 2012 (L.N.Mittal) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Succession Act, 1925 — s. 276.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 06 Mar 2012. The bench was L N MITTAL.
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.