LexMRS. NALINI NAVIN BHAGWATI AND ORS. versus MR. CHANDRAVADAN M. MEHTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. MRS. NALINI NAVIN BHAGWATI AND ORS. A v. MR. CHANDRAVADAN M. MEHTA OCTOBER 11, 1996 (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) B Indian Succession Act, 1925 : Sections 263, 295-Probate-Grant of-Application for revocation thereof-Co11ve1ting it as a regular suit-Rejected by trial court-On revision C High Ccurl directing to treat the application as a suit-On appeal held, procedure required under S.295 need not be adopted for disposal of the application for revocation of the probate or letter of administration-It would be treated as miscellaneous application and disposed of according to the given fact situation. Narbheram Jivaram Purohit v. Jevallabh Harijivan, Vol.XXXV (1933) BLR 998, approved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 14217-20 of 1996 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.95 of the Gujarat High Court in C.R.A. Nos. 1142 and 1148/95 and Order dated 18.7.95 in C.A.Nos. 2825, 2829/95. D E Harish N. Salve, Sunil Dogra, Ms. Monica Sharma and S.S. Shroff F for the Appellants. H.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava, S.C. Dhanda and Ujjwal Banerjee for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated August 14, 1995 made in Civil Revision Applica- G tion Nos. 1142 and 1148 of 1995 and the order dated July 18, 1995 made H 631 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A in Civil Application Nos. 2825 & 2829 of 1995 in CRA Nos. 1142 & 1148 of 1995. B The admitted facts are that one Manvantrai Mehta owned Plot No. 13 in Krishna Cooperative Housing Society at Ahmedabad and also an open plot No. 14 in the said society. He died on 16.1.1995 leaving behind his widow Kamlaben and five children, namely, Narendra, Chandravadan (respondents herein) and Nalini, Chandrakalaben and Vasantben (petitioners herein). In other words, he left behind him three daughters and two sons. Plot No. 13 was in the name of Narendra Mehta who died on August 8, 1971. But his wife was not known. Kamlaben also died on C September 16, 1984. The respondents filed C.M. Application No. 123 of 1985 in the Civil Court at Ahmedabad and obtained probate to the will left by Kamlaben, their mother. The probate was granted on January 16, 1987. The appellants on coming to know of the said probate filed an application to revoke the probate. The Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad was D prayed to convert the application into a regular suit. It was rejected by the trial Court. On revision, the High Court by order dated July 18, 1995 held that there was proper explanation for the delay in filing the application for revocation of the probate but directed to treat the application as a suit filed ~der Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, the 'Act'). Feeling aggrieved by the latter direction, these appeals have come to be E filed. F Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the appel- lants, contended that the application for revocation cannot be treated to be a suit filed under Section 295 of the Act. That would apply only in a case where probate was sought for and there was contentious issues involved in that behalf. Therefore, it would be treated as a suit and the propounder who seeks probate or letter of administration will be treated as a plaintiff and the person opposing the claim as defendant and the application would be set out as a suit for trial under the provisions of CPC. G But application for revocation is required to be considered on the grounds set out under Section 263 of the Act. When the person who seeks revoca- tion of the probate or letter of administration is required to be dealt with as an application but not as a suit. The District Judge, depending upon the given fact-situation would dispose it of either summarily or on full-dress H enquiry, on recording the evidence of witness as a suit. But in no cir- .. NALININAVINBHAGWATiv.C.M.MEHTA 633 cu.nstances, it would be treated as a suit. Shri H.K. Puri, learned counsel A for the respondents, contended that Part IX of the Act itself gives indica- tion as to the manner in which the proceedings could be dealt with at different stages. Chapter IV of Part IX clearly indicates that when an application is filed for probate it should be dealt with as suit and for revocation of a probate similarly it should be treated as a suit and would B be considered in accordanc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.