Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 831 (PAT)

Prabhawati Devi v. State of Bihar

2016-07-01

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

body2016
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing Respondent No.2. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that ‘Will’ has been executed in favour of Rajendra Singh as well as Ramsudist Singh. Petition for Probate/Letter of Administration was filed on behalf of Rajendra Singh and Ramsudist Singh. Ramsudist Singh died, on account thereof, the legal representatives of Ramsudist Singh were substituted and they happen to be party of instant petition as 3 to 3d and so their presence are necessary before adjudication of order impugned. 3. From the order impugned, it is evident that parties’ name figures as Rajendra Singh vs. State of Bihar. After going through the order impugned, it is evident that wherever applicant figures, sole name of Rajendra Singh appears. Apart from this, only Rajendra Singh had objected and his pleading is incorporated at page no.2 of the order impugned. At the present stage also, only Rajendra Singh has appeared. Therefore, it appears that Rajendra Singh is the person who is commanding the situation and further, who on that very pretext intends to delay the matter. Accordingly, the objections so raised on behalf of respondent no.2, Rajendra Singh, on that very score, is hereby, rejected. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that her prayer for impleading her as one of the objectors has been rejected by the learned lower court in a cryptic manner and so, the order impugned is fit to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing Respondent No.2 has submitted that in its present form, presence of petitioner is not at all warranted till her entitlement is decided in terms of partition suit having been launched on her behest bearing Partition Suit No. 581/2005. So the learned lower court had rightly rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Whenever a petition for grant of Probate/Letter Of Administration is filed, a citation has to be effected. How the citation and in whose favour it should be Section 283 defeats the same. Section 283(1)(C) of the Indian Succession deals with the present controversy. – “Issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of Probate/Letter of Administration”. 7. How the citation and in whose favour it should be Section 283 defeats the same. Section 283(1)(C) of the Indian Succession deals with the present controversy. – “Issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of Probate/Letter of Administration”. 7. From the order impugned, it is evident that Respondent No.2/applicant had not contested/challenged the status of Prabhavati Devi to be daughter’s daughter of Jota Kuar (Asarfi) the alleged, executor of the Will. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that Jota Kuar had only two daughters, Munni and Asharfi. So, interest of the petitioner with regard to the property of Jota Kuar could not be disputed. Furthermore, the learned lower court had wrongly and illegally held that the fraud during course of execution of will happens to be outside the jurisdictional avenue while adjudicating upon the genuineness of the Will. 8. That being so, the order impugned does not survive and is, accordingly, set aside. Petition is allowed.