Deepak Kumar Vishnu v. Ashok Kumar Bishnu & Ors

judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? TestCase Nd.-35/2003&C.S. [OS] No-. 449/2011 No. Page 1 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

¶1Subjectmatterofthe suit for partitioninstitutedby Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar as well as the Probate case filed by Petitioner - Ms. Anita is common i.e. residential property No. B-249, EPDP Colony. Chitranjan Park, New Delhi (hereinafterreferredto as the 'suit property').They are the legal heirs of late Sh. G.C. Bishnu. Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar is claiming partition of the suit property on the basis of natural succession while , asserting that he has 1/6'^ share in it, whereas Petitioner-Ms. Anita relies r upon a Will of 14'^ August, 1972, vide which the suit property was ^ bequeathed to her and has thus sought probate on the basis of the aforesaidWill. The remainingtwo legal heirs - Ashok Kumar and Kalyani, are with Petitioner - Ms. Anita and the other two legal heirs i.e. Ms. Manisha and Ms. Sona have joined their brother Deepak Kumar to claim their respective shares in the suit property.

¶2It is a matter of record that the probate.case was filed in this Court and, the suit for partition was instituted in the District Courts and was thereafter transferred vide order of 25"" January, 2005 to this Court for common trial with this Test case: However, vide order of Q'" September, 2005, it was made clear that the suit for partition would be the lead case. For facility" of reference, the parties to the suit proceedings are being referred to by their names instead of being referred to as Defendant no: or Respondent no;.

¶3. Deepak Kumar in his suit for partition claims to be co-owner of the suit property with the five defendants who are his brothers and sisters, TestCase No.35/2003&C.S. (OS] No. 449/2011 Page 2 \(o having 1/6"^ share each therein. It is also asserted by him that on several occasions he had sought partition of the suit property and when on 27'^ June, 2003, he had gone to the suit property to have ja dialogue with Defendants - Ashok Kumar, Kalyani and Anita regarding partitioning of the suit property, and a scene was created there by the aforesaid defendants .and not only there was a refusal by aforesaid Defendants to the partitionof the suit property but also a false complaint was registered against the plaintiff-Deepak Kumar and hence, this suit. 4; In the'written statement, the contesting Defendants, i.e., Ashok Kumar, Kalyani and Anita have denied the averments made in the plaint and have set up a Will of 14^'' August, 1972 of their father late Sh. G.C. Bishnu and it is asserted that plaintiff-Deepak Kumar was living with the family during the life time of his father and was very much aware of the aforesaid Will and for this very reason, during the life time of their mother, he had not dared to seek partitionofthe suit propertyand even after many years of death of their mother, plaintiff-DeepakKumar has come up with this suit for partition as a counter to the petition for probate filed by Ms. Anita, defendant herein. According to these defendants, the suit property goes to defendant-Ms. Anita, as per the Will in question.

¶5Defendants - Ms. Manisha and Ms. Sona, who are the married sisters of plaintiff-Deepak Kumar, in theirwrittenstatement have given 'no objection'to the partitionof the suit property,while claiming their share in it. In the replicationfiled, the averments of the plaint have been reiterated by plaintiff-Mr. Deepak Kumar.

¶6In the petition for probate, petitioner-Ms. Anita seeks letter of TestCase No.35/2003&C.S. [OS] No. 449/2011 • . Page3 , administration in respect of the Will of August, 1972 of their father late Sh. G;C. Bishnuwho had died on 16"" July, 1974 and has placedon record the copy of the Lease Deed of the suit property in favour of her father and the particulars of his legal heirs, who are party to this petition. It is also asserted by Petitioner-Anita that the suit property was purchased and built up from the office home loan taken by her father and after the death of her father, the house loan was repaid from the family pension received by her mother.Thus, it is assertedthatthe suit propertyis purelyselfacquired property of late Sh. G.C. Bishnu, who had after consideringthe existing family circumstances made the Will in question while he was in sound N disposingmind and'had signedthe said Will in the presenceof her mother and brother - Ashok Kumar. Petitioner-Anita further asserts that the factum of this Will was known to plaintiff-Deepak, who was in service but was in no way of any help to the family. As per petitioner-Anita, she and her brother-Ashok, had dedicatedthemselvesto look after their mentally retarded sister-Kalyani and had also looked after their ailing mother who had died on 18*^ April; 1995, and thereafter,accordingto Petitioner-Anita, her brother-Deepak used to give threats of dire consequences if the Will ^ in question is not handed over to him or is not destroyedin his presence and on 27"^ June, 2003, her brother-Deepakwith his son carfieto the suit property and had assaulted her when she had refused to hand over the Will in questionand regardingthis incident,a criminalcase was registered. Probate of the Will in question is sought in respect of the suit property which is the only dwelling house of petitioner-Anita, her brother-Ashok Kumarand theirmentallyretardedsister-Kalyani.

¶7The resistanceto this petitionfor probate by Respondent-Deepak TestCaseNo.35/2003&C.S. [OS] No. 449/2011 Page4 Kumar is on the ground that the purported Will relied upon is forged and fabricated and that the suit for partition in respect of the suit'property is pendingwhere Will in questionwould be an issue. Orderof 9^'^ September, 2005 in Test Case No. 35 of 2003 makes it clear that the Issues framed in the suit for partition would also cover the findings required to be returned in the probate petition as well.. The Issues on which the parties went to trial are a.s under:-

(i) Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to file the . present suit? OPD-1

(ii) Whether the suit is barred by law of Limitation? N OPD-1

(iii) • Whether the Will has been executed by Shri G.C. Vishnu (deceased) in favour of Defendant No.5? OPD

(iv)' Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition as claimed? OPP

(v) Relief.

¶8The evidence led is ofi^Ms. Anita (PW-1), her brother Ashok Kumar (PW-2), Devinder Rajan (PW-3) - concerned Assistant from the Central ^ Board of SecondaryEducation,Govt. of NCT of Delhi,Anil Kumar(PW-4)- UDC from the Departnient of Transport, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, N.S. Katana (PW-5)-(Head Clerkfrom Govt. of NCJ of Delhi and that of Deepak Kumar (RW-1)and hersister Manisha(RW-2). ^ A

¶9Since there was a common trial in the suit for partition and the probate petition, therefore, the arguments advanced by both sides were common and necessarilyboth these matterswere heard togetherand are TestCase NO.35/2003&C.S. [OS] No. 449/2011 Page5 <1^ being disposed of together by this common order. Learned Counsel for the parties had meticulously referred to the aforesaid evidence on record and during the course of hearing, had relied upon decisions reported in Mt. Gomtibai (/. Kanchhedilaland others, AIR (36) 1949 Privy Council 272; Krishna KumarBiria vs. RajendraSingh Lodha and Others^(2008) 4 SCC 300; PargatSingh vs. Aas Kaur(died) throughherLR. Lakha Singh, 1997

(3) RCR Civil 193 (P&H); Pratap Singh &Ann Vs. State, 157 (2009) DLT 731; Smt. indu Baia Bose and others vs. IVIunindra Chandra Bose &Ann, AIR 1982 SC 133; VrindavanibaiSambhaji Mane vs. Ramchandra Vithai Ganesiikarand others, AIR 1995 SC 2086; and H.Venkatachalaiyengar \ vs. B.N. Thimmajammaand others, AIR 1959 SC 443

¶10The submissionsadvancedand the decisionscited have been duly considered and the evidence on record has been scrutinized and thereafter,the findingsreturnedon the Issues framed are herein as under:-

¶11About thirty years, after the death of Shri G.C. Bishnu, this suit for partitionhas-beenfiled, which is said to be hopelesslybarred by time, as Defendants-Ashok Kumar, Kalyaniand Anita assertthat immediatelyafter the death of Shri G.C. Bishnu on 16"^ July, 1974, the demand for partition of the suit propertywas made by the Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar, which was rejected by the aforesaid three Defendants and their mother on the strengthof the Will in. questionand on 27'" June, 2003, Plaintiff-Deepak Kumarwith his sons had visitedthe suit premises to take over/destroythe Will in question but in vain and had furiously assaulted Petitioner-Ms. Anita, to whom the suit property is bequeathed by the Will in question. TestCase NO.35/2003&C.S. (OS] No. 449/2011 ^ C\ \ Whereas, according to Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar, on 27*" June, 2003, he had visited the suit property to seek partition thereof and a scene was created by the contesting Defendants and a police complaint was lodged against the Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar.

¶12The law of limitation governing suit for•partition of immovable property stands reiterated in Nanak Chand and Ors. ¥s. Chander KlsHoreand Ors,, AIR 1982 Delhi 520, in the followingwords;- "The crucial question in such cases is when a right to sue accrues, there can be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or, at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringethat right, by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted : Mst. Bolo v. Mt. Koklen and others,. AIR 1930 PC 270 Where there are successive invasions or denials of a right, the right to sue under Article 120 . (Article 113) accrues when the defendant has clearly and unequivocally threatened to infringe the right asserted by the plaintiffin the suit. Every threat by a party to such right, however, ineffective or innqcuous it may be, cannot be considered to be a clear and unequivocal threat so as to compel him to file a suit. Whether a particular threat gives rise to a compulsory cause of action depends upon the question whether the threat effectivelyinvades or jeopardizes the said right: IVIst Rukna Bai v. Lala Laxminarayan, (1960) 2 SCR • 253." .

¶13In the instantcase, Plaintiff-DeepakKumar pleadsignoranceabout the Will in question,which accordingto him is forged and fabricated.The evidence of the Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar, of his seeking partition of the suit propertyand of the contestingDefendantspostponingit on one pretext TestCaseNo.35/2003&C.S. [OS] No. 449/2011 Page 7 or the.other.andof his lastly seeking it on 27^^ June, 2003 and a scene being created and refusal by the contesting Defendants to the proposed;partition, remains unchallenged in his cross-examination. Therefore, it has to be taken that effective refusal of the contesting Defendants to the assertion of the Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar to seek partition of the suit propertywas on 27*'^ June, 2003, thereby giving him cause of action to file the suit for partition,which was in fact filed on 19"' November, 2003. Since the contesting Defendants have failed to lead cogentevidencethat there was specificdenial of the right of the Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar to seek partition of the suit premises, prior to 27^'^ June, 2003, therefore, they have failed to establish that the right to seek the partition of the suit property has been lost on account of lapse of time. Resultantly,it is held that this suit for partition is not barred by time. This Issue is answered accordingly.

¶14Validity of the Will of 14'' August, 1972 by late Shri G.C. Bishnu in favour of Defendant/Petitioner-Ms. Anita, is the crucial question,which would determinethe fate of these three Issues. But first, status of the suit property requires determination, i.e., whether if was self-acquired or ancestralqua the parties to these proceedings.Except a vain attempt by Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar to orally assert that loan against suit property was repaid from pension of the Testator or he had also contributed towardsthe said repayment,there is no worthwhileevidenceon record to establishthe ancestralnatureof the suit property.It is not even the case of Plaintiff-Deepak Kumarthat suit propertywas HUF property.Rather,the TestCase No.35/2003&C.S. [OS] No. 449/2011 _ evidenceled clearly proves that the suit propertywas allottedto Late Shri G.C. Bishnuand he had built it with the office home loan, which was repaid from his pension, but Plaintiff—Deepak Kumarfails to prove that he had in any way contributedtowards its repayment.Thus, it stands amply proved that the suit propertywas the self-acquiredpropertyof the Testator-Late Shri G.C. Bishnu. 15; .What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of Wills, is well establishedand it stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in BhaDporSiogh and Ors. vs. ShamsherSingh (2009) 3 SCC 687 and the suspicious circumstances, which are likely to surround the execution of a highlighted are as under:-

(i) •The signatureof the testatormay be very shaky and doubtful or not appear to be his usual signature.

(ii) The conditionof the testator'smind may be very feeble and debilitated at the relevant time.

(Hi) The dispositionmay be unnatural, improbableor unfair in the light of relevant circumstances like exclusion of or absence of adequate provisions for the natural heirs withoutany reason.

(iv) The dispositions may not~^appearto be the result of the testator's free will and mind.

(v) The propoundertakes a prominent part in the execution of the

(vi) The testatorused to sign blankpapers.

(vii) The Will did notsee the lightofthe day for long.

(viii) Incorrect recitals of essential. facts.

¶18The circumstances narrated, hereinbefore are not TestCase No.35/2003&C.S. [OS] No. 449/2011 Page9 exhaustive. Subject to offer of reasonable explanation, existence thereof must be taken Into consideration for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the execution of the Will had duly been proved or not.

¶16Undoubtedly,it is an establishedrule of law that the propounderof the Will has to prove,its due execution,as providedunderSection63 ofthe Indian SuccessionAct, 1925. The Will of 14th August, 1972 (Ex.PW-1/2)is ' witnessedby the motherof the partiesas well as by one of their brothers, i.e., Mr. Ashok Kumar, PW-2. The mother of the parties had left this world / in the year 1995 and the survivingwitnessto this Will is Mr. Ashok Kumar (PW-2), who in his deposition has categoricallystated that the Testator had signed on both the pages of the Will in his presence and he and his mother had also signed the said Will and he has identifiedthe signatures of the Testator as well as his signatures and that of his mother on the Will in question.-It has come in the evidence of this witness that the suit .propertyis a self acquired-property of the Testator who was in complete control of his mental and physical faculties at the time of the execution of this Will. .

¶17In the cross-examinationof this witness (PW-2), a vain attemptwas made to show that since the Testatorwas sufferingfrom cancerof urinary bladder,therefore,he was not keeping good health. Simply because, rest was advised for fifteen days to the Testatorvide medical certificate(Ex. RW-1/P2), it cannot be inferred that the Testatorwas not physicallyand mentallyfit to execute the Will in question. In fact, it has come in the cross-examination of this witness that Testator used to remain mentally and physicallyfit even at the time of undergoingthe therapy/treatment.Infact, TestCase No.35/2003&C.S. [OS] No. 449/2011 Page 10 v: nothing turns on the fact thatthe Testatorwas not followingthe adviceof ' the doctorbecausethe Plaintiff-DeepakKumar, himselfhad admittedin his evidencethat his father, i.e. the Testatorwas an officerand remained aprudentman till his death. Thus, there remainsno mannerof doubtthat the Testator had the requisite mental faculties to execute the Will in question. Even Manisha (RW-2), sister of the parties, who is supporting Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar has admitted in her evidencethat though her father Shri G.C. Bishnu, i.e.. Testatorhad died of oancer, but before his death, he was havinggood health.

¶18During the course of hearing, attentionof this Court was drawn to p the cross-examinationof the Attesting Witness Ashok Kumar (PW-2) to showthat his duty timingswere from 10 AM to 5PM and so, he could not have been presentat the time ofallegedsigningof the Will (Ex.PW-1/2)as a witness at 4or 4.30 PM. To disbelievethe presenceof this Attesting WnessAshok Kumar(PW-2)at4or 4.30 PM at the house,-whenthe Will ' in question was signed, it was required to specificallycross-examinethis witnessas to how he was presentat 4O'clockat the house,when his duty timings were up to 5 PM. Had there been any cross-examinationof this j witnessto this effect,then only, this witnesscould have thrown some light on this aspect. Therefore,this conjecturalsubmissioncannot be accepted ; on the face of it, for the reason that there is not even a suggestionto this AttestingWitness-PW-2, of his not being presentat the time of execution ofthe Will, becauseof his being presenton duty.

¶19In any case, the standof the Plaintiff-DeepakKumar is thatthe Will in question is forged and fabricated.To assertso, learnedcounselfor the TestCase No.35/2003&C.S. [OSJ No. 449/2011 ' i Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar had drawn attention of this Court to the Will of 14th August, 1972 (Ex.PW-1/2)to showthat theTestatorhas not signedat the place, where he ought to have signed. Upon perusalof the Will of 14th August, 1972 (Ex.PW-1/2),Ifind that thoughthere is some space between the place where EXECUTANT'is typed and the place where the name and address of the Testatoris typed, and the Testatorhas signed above the word 'EXECUTANTbut this by itselfwould not probabalisethe plea of Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar of the Testatorsigning the blank documentand thereafter,the Will in questionis being typed thereon,because,on the first page ofthe Will of 14thAugust, 1972 (Ex.PW-1/2),the Testatorhad signed on the left margin, as there was no space to sign at the bottom ofthe.first page of this Will. Even if it is assumed that the Testator had signed on blank pages,then his signatureswould have appearedat the bottom of the first page. But it is not so. He has signedon the left margin of the first page ofthe Will. Therefore,on this account,the Will in questionis not rendered doubtful.

¶20Since-the Will in questionbequeaths the suit propertyto Petitioner-Ms. Anita, therefore, by. any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the beneficiaryof the Will in question is the Attesting Witness - Ashok Kumar (PW-2). It was asserted by learned counsel for the Plaintiff - Deepak Kumar that the AttestingWitness(PW-2) was minor at the time of execution of the Will as he was aged 17-years then. Though, there was some ambiguityon this aspect as this witness (PW-2) in his evidence by/ way of Affidavithad given his present age as 52 years, from which it could be inferred that he was less than 18 years when this Will was executed but this aspect stands clarifiedfrom the evidence of Official Witness (PW-5) TestCase No.35/2003&C.S. (OS) No. 449/2011 Page 12 a/ who has produced the official record (Ex.PW-5/1')running into six pages, comprising of the application for inclusion of the name in the electoral roll with copy of the Higher Secondary Examination Certificate and Ration Card, to conclusively show that the date of birth of this Witness Mr. Ashok Kumar (PW-2)was 2^^ April. 1953. which cleahyprovesthat on the day of executionofthe Will in question,he was more than 19 years ofage.

¶21Simply because,this AttestingWitness-PW2 has candidlystated in his evidencethat the Testatorhad got the Will in question alreadytyped and he does not know from where he got typed, his depositioncannot be disbelieved,for the reasonthat nothingworthwhilehas been broughtout in his cross-examinationto cast any doubt about the due executionofthe Will in question. Merely because the Will in question was not registered, its evidentiary value does not get diminished. Since this Will was executed in Delhi, therefore, it was not required under the law to get it probated and the Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar or his sisters-Ms. Manisha and Ms. Sona. cannot plead ignorance about the existence of this Will because the Testatorhad diligentlymade it clear in the Will itselfthat he had conveyed about the Will to all his family members and that this was his last Will. Candidly, the,Testator had disclosed in the Will (Ex.PW-1/2)that he is sufferingfrom cancer or urinary bladder and the chances of his recovery are negligible,but. he is absolutelyof sound mind and he has bequeathed the suit propertyvery carefullyto his daughterMs. Anita, so that there may not be any dispute in future, because he was very much worriedabout the future of his daughterAnita and Kalyani,who was mentallyretarded,while making Petitioner - Anita responsible for looking after his mentally retarded daughter Kalyani and the Testator had expressed in so many TestCase No.35/2003&C.S. [OS] No. 449/2011 Page 13 words his hope that Petitioner-Anita would not disappointhis soul after his death.

¶22Oral assertions by Plaintiff—Deepak Kumar and his sister Manisha (RW-2) of their being blissfullyunaware of the Will in question or of non productionof the Will in questionduring the life time of their mother, does not cut any ice, for the reason, it is the consistent stand of Petitioner-Anita and the AttestingWitness (PW-2) that all the family members were aware of the Will in question,as its executionwas not kept secretand it was disclosedto all the family members at the time of its execution.This stand is fortifiedfrom the contentsof the Will in questionas it is specifically recorded therein that the Testatorhad conveyed about this Will to all his family members. 2o. The reasons to exclude his five legal heirs from succeeding'to the suit property have been succinctlyspelt out by the Testatorin the Will in question.The reason to exclude Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar is clearlystated in the Will in questionas the Testatorhad found Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar . to be rude, disobedientand wayward and has no help to him. Since the Testator had legitimatelyexpected that his son Ashok Kumar can on his own establishhimselfin life, therefore,he had reposed confidencein him % and has made him an AttestingWitnessto this Will, as Manishadaughter' of the Testatorwas married and well settled in her life in Calcutta,so she was excluded and the reason to exclude his anotherdaughterSona was that she was in GovernmentService and he was not worried about her. The subsequentevents speak themselves. It is not even the case of the Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar that his mentally retarded sister Kalyani is not being looked after by Petitioner-Anita, who had not married and is TestCaseNo.35/2003&C.S. [OS] No. 449/2011 p^gg diligently taking care of her sister Kalyani, who is not only mentally retarded butis totally dependentupon Petitioner-Anita as well as on her brother Ashok Kumar, who has also not marhed. The Testator in his wisdom has reposed immense confidencein Petitioner-Anita to which, she has lived upto and therefore,rightlyso, he had rightlybequeathedthe suit property to her. Thus from any angle, it cannot be said that the bequeathingof the suit propertyby the Testatorto Petitioner-Anita was unnatural, improbable, unjust or unfair. Infact, the Testator had wisely bequeathedthe suit propertyto Petitioner-Anita.

¶24After analytical analysis of the entire evidence on record, I, unhesitatingly conclude that there are no suspicious circumstances surroundingthe Will of 14th August, 1972 (Ex.PW-1/2)and so, reliance placed upon decisions in Pargat Singh vs. Aas Kaur (died) through her L.R. Lakha Singh, 1997 (3) RCR Civil 193 (P&H); Pratap Singh &Ann Vs. State, 157 (2009) DLT 731; Smt. indu Baia Bose and others vs. l\/1unindra ChandraBose &Ann, AIR 1982 SC 133; VrindavanibaiSambhajiMane vs. Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshl<ar and others, AIR 1995 SC 2086; and l-i.Venl<atachalalyengarvs. B.N. Thimmajammaand others, AIR 1959 SC 443, by learned counselfor the Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar is of no avail. In the light of the evidenceon record, it is held that the Will of 14th August, 1972 (Ex.PW-1/2)had been validlyexecutedin favourof Petitioner-Anita, who is entitled to letter of administrationin respect of the Will of 14th August, 1972 (Ex.PW-1/2). Consequentially,it is held that Plaintiff - Deepak Kumar loosesthe locus and is not entitledto the reliefof partition, as claimed by him; Findings on Issues (i) &(iv) are returned against Plaintiff-Deepak Kumar and the suit being C.S. (OS) No. 449/2011 is ii.t .1..mill _ I .1. ..I. ..... TestCaseNo.35/2003&C.S. (OS] No. 449/2011 —' ^ accordinglydismissed,whereas tlie petition for probate being Test Case 1^0.35/2003is allowed.TllesettireeIssuesare answeredaccordingly. •25. Consequentupon the findings returned as aforesaid, the suit for partitionis dismissedand the petitionfor grant of probateis allowedwhile leavingthe partiesto beartheirown costs.

¶26This suit and the petitionare accordinglydisposedof. hp March 18, 2011 pkb/rs --Synlii liauir, J. TestCase No.35/2003&C.S. [OS] No. 449/2011 Page 16 •*%

- ^ w HIGH COURT OF DELHi : NEW DELHI Judgment reserved oo: February 24, 2011 ' Judgnmeint pronounced on; March 1o, 2011 . TEST CASE NO. 35/2003 •. ' ' % Ms. Anita Bishnu ... Petitioner Through: iVIr. Rajshekhar Rao and Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Advocates versus State-Govt. of NCT of Delhi &Others ... Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Sen, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Rama Shanker, Advocate for Respondent No. 5 and 6 > C.S. (OS) Wo. 449/2011 % Mr. Deepak Kumar Vishnu ... Plaintiff Through: Mr. A.K. Sen, Advocate for Plaintiff. versus Ashok Kumar Bishnu & ors. Through: Defendants Mr. Rama Shanker, Advocate for Defendant No. 1 Mr. Rajshekhar Rao and Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Advocates for Defendant No. 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTlCE'SUiMlL GAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the