SUNIL GUPTA versus KIRAN GIRHOTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 09-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

) 
SUNILGUPTA 
A 
v. 
KIRAN GIRHOTRA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 9, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Succession Act, 1925-ss. 263 and 283-Probate proceedings-
Jmpleadment of purc~aser of property belonging to testator as a 
necessary party-Entitlement of-Held: Transferee of property during C 
pendency of proceedings is not a necessary party-Citation are 
necessary to be made to only of those who, claim through or under 
the Will or deny or dispute execution thereof-On facts, purchaser and! 
or his predecessor, of the property forming subject matter of Will, took 
risk of the result of the probate proceedings before purchasing D 
properties, as such is not a necessary party-Thus, purchaser not 
entitled to be impleaded in the probate proceedings. 
HB executed a Will on 09.09.1997. Respondent-HB's daughters 
filed application for grant of probate. Sons ofHB filed objections E 
thereto. Son RK submitted another Will of HB, allegedly executed 
on 30.10.1997. RK executed sale deeds in favour of AP with regard 
to the properties forming subject matter of grant under the Will. 
'"' 
Neither probate nor objection from other legal heirs was obtained 
in respect of Will dated 30.10.1997. AP entered into sale agreement 
in respect of the properties. Appellant, successor of AP filed 
F 
application for impleadment in the probate proceedings. Application 
was allowed. However, High Court set aside the order. Hence the 
present appeal. 
) 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1 A transferee of a property during the pendency of a 
proceeding is not a necessary party. Citations are necessary to be 
made to only of those who, inter alia, claim through or under the Will 
827 
G 
H 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A or deny or dispute the execution thereof. Citation should be 
conspicuously displayed on a notice board. Even otherwise ordinarily 
a transferee pendent lite without leave of the court cannot be 
impleaded as a party. Further, plaintiff in the suit is the dominus litis. 
If he intends to take a calculated risk in the matter, the court may 
B not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. 
(Paras 13, 17, 20 and 21] [832-G; 833-C; 834-C-D] 
2.1. Sons of late HB had entered Caveats. Their objections 
would be considered in the probate proceedings. RK is not only 
opposing grant of probate in favour of the respondents in respect of 
C the Will dated 09.09.1997; but he himself is said to be claiming under 
a Will executed by late HB on 30.10.1997. RK evidently was aware 
of the proceedings. If a proceeding had been initiated for grant of 
probate, appellant and/or his predecessor, AP would be deemed to 
have notice thereof. Before purchasing the properties, AP and 
D consequently the appellant had taken a calculated risk. In a situation 
of this nature, he is not a necessary party. He took the risk of the 
result of the probate proceedings. His apprehensions that RK may 
not take any interest in the litigation cannot by itself be a ground 
for interfering with the impugned judgment. It is speculative in nature. 
E More so, the appellants are only the speculators who had purchased 
litigated properties. 
(Paras 12, 14, 16 and 17] [832-E-F; 833-B, C, D; 833-A] 
2.2. High Court in its impugned judgment has noticed that the 
F attesting witnesses of the Will had already been examined. If the 
appellant is impleaded as a party, the clock would be put back. 
[Paras 14] [832-H] 
Banwarilal Shrinilms v. Kwnari Kusum Bai and Ors., AIR (1973) 
MP 69; Seth Beni Chand (since Dead) Now by L.Rs. v. Smt. Kamla 
G Kunwar and Ors., [1976] 4 SCC 554; Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi 
Hassan Saheb and Anr., [2004] 1 SCC 191; Kasturi v. Jyyamperumal 
and Ors., [2005] 6 SCC 733; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai and Ors., 
[2002] 6 SCC 1 and Indian Associates v. Shivendra bahadur Singh & 
Ors., 104 (2003) DLT 820, referred to. 
H 
y 
SUNILGUPTAv. KIRANGIRHOTRA[SINHA,J.] 
829 
) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4729 of A 
2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 31.08.2006 & 13.11.2006 
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Misc. (Main) No. 285 
of2006 & Review Petition No. 393 of2006 respectively. 
B 
WITH 
Contempt Petition (C) No. 270/2007. 
Raju Ramachandran and Meenakshi Arora for the Appellant. 
O.P. Khadaria (for Mitter & Co.) for the Respondents and Indra, c 
Respondent No. 4, In-Person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. The question as to whether a pu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.