ASHOK KUMAR SINGHAL AND ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.
FEBRUARY 19, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ]
B
S.275/S.18, 20, 54-Compensation for land acquired-Reference Cowt
directing payment of 2/3 and 1/3 share to the appellants and respon-
dents-High Cowt holding that the appellants and respondents would be en-
titled to 50% share-Will entitles 2/3 share to appellants and 1/3 share to
C
respondents-Probate granted by Civil Court-Conclusive and binding on the
parties unless revoked in appropriate proceedings.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4258 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.2.90 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in F.A. No. 24 of 1978.
B.S. Banthia and G. Prakash for the Appellants.
Sushi! Kumar Jain and Mrs Partibha Jain for the Respondents .
. The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
One Gyaso Bai, mother of the respondent had executed a will on
March 20, 1964 in favour of Ram Swaroop. After her demise, he obtained
D
E
F
a probate of the will on April 16, 1965. The Government had acquired 57
bighas of land and by award dated May 28, 1965 determined the compen-
G
sation and the reference Court directed payment of 2/3rd and l/3rd share
respectively to the appellants and the respondents.
The High Court had held that the appellants and the respondents
are entitled to 50% share each by judgment and order dated February 2,
1990 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Bench in FA 24/78.
H
833
A
B
c
D
E
F
834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996) 2 S.C.R.
The question is : whether the view of the High Court which is sought
to be supported by learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. S.K. Jain is
correct in law ? According to him, in a reference under Section .18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Court is entitled to go into the question
of the share to which the parties are entitled. When the matter is in dispute.
reference Court under Section 30 or the High Court under Section 54 can
go into the question and direct payment of 50% share to each of the
parties. The view of the High Court is, therefore, correct. We find no force
in the contention.
Section 275 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads thus :
"275. - The application for probate or letters of administration, if
made and verified in the manner hereinafter provided, shall be
conclusive for the purpose of authorising the grant of probate or
administration; and no such grant shall be impeached by reason
only that the testator or intestate had no fixed place of abode or
no property within the district at the time of his death, unless by
a proceeding to revoke the grant if obtained by a fraud upon the
Court."
It would, thus, be seen that the probate granted by the competent
civil Court would be conclusive and bind all parties until the probate is
duly revoked in an appropriate proceedings. It may, therefore; be open to
the parties to impeach the probate in the manner provided under law. But
so long as that was not done, parties were bound by the probate. The will
indicates that the entitlement of the appellants is 2/3 share and that of the
respondents is 1/3 share. Therefore, the High Court and the civil Court
were not right in directing payment of the amount in the manner indicated
by the orders.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. However, this order will not
preclude the respondents tci initiate such appropriate proceedings as may
G be open under law. No costs.
·
G.N.·
Appeal allowed.
Lex