Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1437 (JHR)

Hari Mahato @ Hari Prasad Yadav v. Bachhia Devi

2015-11-20

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 27.02.2004 in Probate Case No. 08 of 1999, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioners claim purchases from Deoki Raut and others vide registered sale deed dated 28.08.1974, 04.01.1978 and 27.05.1981. The said Deoki Raut was transferred the land in question by one Mostt. Khemia through registered sale deed dated 01.11.1969. The said Mostt. Khemia was the wife of the deceased Jiblal Mahto who allegedly executed his last Will on 08.11.1954. Subsequently, Smt. Bachhia Devi and Sarju Yadav instituted Probate Case No. 08 of 1999 for administration of estate of the testator namely, Jiblal Mahto. In the probate case the petitioners filed petition dated 21.01.2003 for their impleadment in the case. The said application has been dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2004. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 submits that Probate Case No. 08 of 1999 has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20.06.2007, against which respondent nos. 1 & 2 filed M.A. No. 259 of 2007 before this Court. The said miscellaneous appeal was allowed and the matter has been remitted back to the Lower Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to decision in “G. Gopal Vs. C. Baskar and Others” (2008) 10 SCC 489 and submits that the petitioners have substantial interest in the properties of the deceased namely, Jiblal Mahto and thus, they should have been added parties in the Probate Case No. 08 of 1999. 5. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 have filed counter affidavit in the present proceeding however, I find that the claim of the petitioners that they are purchasers from Deoki Raut has not been disputed. A plea has been raised by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 that Most. Khemia had no authority to execute sale deed in favour of Deoki Raut and thus, the petitioners have not acquired valid title through registered sale deeds executed by Deoki Raut and others. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioners claimed to have acquire properties comprised in various sale deeds executed by the said Deoki Raut and others which form part of the estate of deceased testator Jiblal Mahto, the petitioners have caveat able interest in the estate of the testator and, thus they should have been impleaded in the probate case. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioners claimed to have acquire properties comprised in various sale deeds executed by the said Deoki Raut and others which form part of the estate of deceased testator Jiblal Mahto, the petitioners have caveat able interest in the estate of the testator and, thus they should have been impleaded in the probate case. Accordingly, impugned order dated 27.02.2004 is set-aside. The petitioners are directed to be added as party defendants in Probate Case No. 08 of 1999. The petitioners may file their objection, in accordance with law after they are added party defendants in the probate case.