GURSWAROOP JOSHI versus BEENA SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 25-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
GURSWAROOP JOSHI 
V. 
BEENA SHARMA & ORS. 
APRIL 25, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Hindu Law: 
Indian Succession Act, 1985; Ss.81 & 89: 
Will-Ambiguity/deficiency on the face of the Will-Probate granted by 
trial Court-High Court passing injunctions restraining both the parties from 
raising objections-On appeal, Held: The contention raised by the legal heirs/ 
representatives should have been properly considered by the High Court-
Order of the High Court suffers from manifest error-Hence cannot be 
sustained. 
The first respondent/legal heirs filed an application under Section 
276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of 
the Will executed by his deceased father. Trial Court granted the probate. 
The widow of the testator and other legal heirs/representatives preferred 
E an appeal before the High Court. Single Judge of the High Court opined 
that though there is an unusual clause in the Will couched in a slightly 
vague words, but it is a part and parcel of the Will. Later, it directed that 
the appellant and respondents since bound by the terms of the Will are 
restrained from raising any objection against the Will. Hence the present 
F appeal. 
The appellant contended that by reason of interim orders, vested 
right of a party cannot be taken away; that having regard to the order 
dated 6.2.2003 of the Single Judge of the High Court wherein it was clearly 
opined that the terms of the Will was vague and thus void on the ground 
G of uncertainty, the same could not have been directed to be enforced, 
particularly, when the appeal against the order granting probate is still 
pending. 
H 
One of the respondents submitted that the appellant having accepted 
the genuineness of the Will in the Court, he cannot turn round and 
342 
GURSWAROOP JOSHI v. BEENA SHARMA 
343 
question the validity thereof. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. If the contents of the Will are found to be vague despite 
the genuineness thereof, the grant of probate in favour of the 1st 
respondent may, ultimately, be declined. It is in that view of the matter, B 
the High Court must be held to be not justified in passing interim orders 
in mandatory form in terms of which not only the appeal preferred by 
respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 would become infructuous, the parties would 
also be forced to give effect to the provisions of the Will, although, they 
may have reservations in relation thereto. Grant of mandatory injunction C 
on such premise, therefore, suffers from manifest error. (346-H; 347-A-B) 
Union of India & Ors. v. Modiluft Ltd, [2003) 6 SCC 65 and Srikrishna 
& Ors. v. Aniruddha Singh & Ors., [2005) 12 SCC 389, referred to. 
2. In any event, the order of the trial Court would merge in the order 
of the Appellate court which may ultimately be passed and thus, it is D 
necessary that before the stipulations made' in the said Will are directed 
to be given effect to, the contentions raised by the appellant, as also the 
respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 should receive proper consideration by the 
High Court. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders cannot be 
sustained, hence set aside. However, having regard to the peculiar facts E 
and circumstances of the case, the High Court is requested to consider 
the desirability of disposing of the appeal as expeditiously as possible by 
taking into account the effect of various interim orders passed at different 
stages. [347-C-D-E-F] 
Chandi Prasad & Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad & Ors., (2004] 8 SCC 724, F 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1520-1522 
of 2004. 
From the Interlocutary Orders dated 6.2.2003, 13.3.2003 and 20.3.2003 G 
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in F AO No. 248/1996. 
Sandhya Goswami and Jasbir Singh for the Appellant. 
Sujit K. Singh, Abhishek Agarwal, Sudhir Nandrajog, L.D. Adhlakha 
and S.L. Aneja for the Respondents. 
H 
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
S.8. SINHA, J. A Will was executed on 3.1.1980 by one Harbans Lal 
Joshi. He passed away on 5.3.1981 leaving behind the following heirs and 
legal representatives: 
I. 
Smt. Pushpawati Joshi, widow. 
II. 
Late Shri Basant Kumar Joshi (deceased son of Shri H.L. Joshi) 
through: 
(1) Smt. Chandrakala Joshi widow of Shri Basant Kumar Joshi. 
(2) Gunjan Joshi d/o Shri Basant Kumar Joshi. 
(3) Siddarth Joshi s/o Shri Basant Kumar Joshi. 
III. Dr. Sahib Swamp Jo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.