MANJU PURI versus RAJIV SINGH HANSPAL & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 14-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
MANJU PURI
v.
RAJIV SINGH HANSPAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8455 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 14, 2019.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Succession Act, 1925: ss. 268, 283, 276 – Probate of Will –
Revocation of – Issuance of citation to legal heirs – Requirement
of – On facts, testator executed a Will bequeathing immovable
property to his eldest daughter – 20 years later probate obtained
and no objection certificates of two daughters of the testator and
his wife attached – Two years later, suit for partition by younger
daughter of testator against the eldest daughter in respect of the
immovable property – Written statement by the eldest daughter that
the said property was gifted to her by her mother – Dismissal of
the partition suit – Subsequently, legal heirs of the eldest daughter
sold the property – Thereafter, appellant-daughter of testator’s
younger daughter filed application for revocation of probate –
Rejection of application by the Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench of the High Court – On appeal, held: There was no reference
about Will nor of probate proceedings in the suit for partition and
in the written statement – Rights were claimed on the basis of
registered deed of gift executed by the mother in favour of her elder
daughter, which cast a doubt on the alleged consent given by the
younger daughter in the probate proceedings – It is the appellant’s
case that she came to know about the probate proceedings only
through conveyance deed – No finding of the High Court that on
any earlier point of time the appellant had knowledge of the
probate proceedings as such there was no inordinate delay in filing
the application – Furthermore, the Single Judge erred in not issuing
any citation to the younger daughter of the testator in the probate
proceedings and without any verification of genuineness of no
objection certificates mechanically granted probate which was
unsustainable – Even though Single Judge had discretion to issue
citation or not but in the facts of the instant case a citation ought
to have been issued in exercise of discretion conferred u/s. 283
and the probate granted without issuance of such citation in the
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 829
829
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
facts of the instant case is to be revoked – Thus, the application
for revocation of probate is allowed and probate is revoked – Rules
of the High Court at Calcutta (Original Side), 1914 – Chapter
XXXV.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Without adverting to these facts, the High
Court could not have jumped on the conclusion that there is
inordinate delay in filing the revocation application. Neither there
is anything brought on record by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to
indicate that the appellant or her mother had knowledge of
probate proceedings on any prior date nor the High Court has
returned any finding that the appellant had knowledge of probate
proceedings and she is guilty of filing an application with delay.
There being no finding of the High Court that on any earlier
point of time the appellant had knowledge of the probate
proceedings, the observation that the application having been
filed with inordinate delay and deserved to be rejected cannot
be approved. [Para 20] [841-B-C]
1.2 In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, no
delay can be imputed on the appellant in filing application for
revocation of probate when after getting inspection of the PLA
records on 19.05.2011 she immediately filed the application for
revocation of the probate in July, 2011 itself. The observation
of the High Court that there was inordinate delay is
unsustainable. [Para 21] [841-D]
1.3 The Will of SS which has been probated is unregistered
Will dated 15.06.1961. For the probate of the Will the application
was filed by the executor on 27.05.1982 and the Will was
probated on 04.06.1982. It is admitted case of the parties that
no citation was issued by the Single Judge to any of the legal
heirs of deceased. In the instant case counter–affidavit has been
filed by respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 where they have taken a
specific case that citation was not required to be issued. In the
probate proceedings BK consented to grant a probate [Para 25]
[842-G-H; 843-A]
1.4 Rule 5A of the High Court Rules provides that in all
the applications for probate or for letters of administration with
the Will annexed the petition shall state the names of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
members of the family or other relatives

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