KANTA YADAV versus OM PRAKASH YADAV & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 790 · Decided: 24-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
790
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
KANTA YADAV
v.
OM PRAKASH YADAV & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5823 of 2019)
JULY 24, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Indian Succession Act, 1925 – ss.57, 213 – One ‘ZS’ owned
certain immoveable property in New Delhi – He executed Will dtd.
June 16, 1985 and codicil dtd. Oct. 21, 1995 bequeathing self-
acquired property in favour of both the parties – ‘ZS’ died –  Two
suits filed – One by the respondents inter alia claiming permanent
injunction in respect of the Will and codicil executed by ‘ZS’ and
also will dtd. June 18, 2009 executed by the wife of ‘ZS’ –Other suit
filed by the appellant claiming natural succession – Division Bench
of the High Court held that the bar u/s.213 is not applicable and
set aside the order of rejection of plaint directing that both the suits
be clubbed and common evidence be led together – Issue as to
whether it is necessary to seek probate or letter of administration in
respect of a Will in terms of s.213 in the National Capital Region of
Delhi – Held: Present National Capital Region Delhi was part of
erstwhile State of Punjab prior to Nov. 1, 1966 –  Statutory provisions
are clear that the 1925 Act is applicable to Wills and codicils made
by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, who were subject to the
jurisdiction of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal or within the local
limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts
of Madras or Bombay [Clause (a) of s.57 ] – Secondly, it is
applicable to all Wills and codicils made outside those territories
and limits so far as relates to immoveable property within the
territories aforementioned- [Clause (b) of s.57] – Clause (c) of s.57
inter alia relates to the Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist,
Sikh or Jain on or after the first day of Jan. 1927, to which
provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b) – However, sub-
sec. (2) of s.213 applies only to Wills made by Hindu, Buddhist,
Sikh or Jain where such Wills are of the classes specified in clauses
(a) or (b) of s.57 – Thus, clause (c) is not applicable in view of
   [2019] 9 S.C.R. 790
790
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
791
s.213(2) – No error in the judgment passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 7, r.11.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The statutory provisions are clear that the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 is applicable to Wills and codicils made by
any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, who were subject to the
jurisdiction of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal or within the
local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High
Courts of Madras or Bombay - {clause (a) of Section 57 of the
Act}.  Secondly, it is applicable to all Wills and codicils made
outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immoveable
property within the territories aforementioned - Clause (b) of
Section 57. The clause (c) of Section 57 of the Act relates to the
Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain on
or after the first day of January, 1927, to which provisions are not
applied by clauses (a) and (b).  However, sub-section (2) of Section
213 of the Act applies only to Wills made by Hindu, Buddhist,
Sikh or Jain where such Wills are of the classes specified in clauses
(a) or (b) of Section 57.  Thus, clause (c) is not applicable in view
of Section 213(2) of the Act.  In view thereof, the Wills and codicils
in respect of the persons who are subject to the Lieutenant-
Governor of Bengal or who are within the local limits of ordinary
original civil jurisdiction of High Court of Madras or Bombay
and in respect of the immoveable properties situated in the above
three areas.  Such is the view taken in the number of judgments
referred to above in the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as
in Delhi as also by Supreme Court in Clarence Pais. No error in
the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
[Paras 12-14] [797-G-H; 798-A-E]
Clarence Pais & Ors. v. Union of India (2001) 4 SCC
325 : [2001] 2 SCR 43 – relied on.
Ram Chand v. Sardara Singh & Ors. AIR 1962 P&H
382 ; M/s. Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand
Sahni & Ors. 1968 AIR (Punjab) 108 ; Mrs. Winifred
Nora Theophilus v. Mr. Lila Deane & Ors. AIR 2002
Delhi 6 ; Shri Rajan Suri & Anr. v. The State & Anr.
AIR 2006 Delhi 48 – referred to.
KANTA YADAV v. OM PRAKASH YADAV & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
AIR 1962 P&H 382
referr

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