Sh. Jagdish Prasad v. State

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. DECEMBER 22, 2016 bs (corrected & released on 11th January, 2017)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 22nd December, 2016. + TEST.CAS.4/2007 JAGDISH PRASAD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Rai and Mr. Rishi Kumar, Advs. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Surendra Bhati, Advs. for objector Pujya Sadhvi Shantanand Smarak Samiti. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition under Sections 276 & 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was filed seeking probate of a document dated 9th February, 1982 stated to be the validly executed last Will of Mata Shantanand who died on 13th November, 1984. 2. It was inter alia pleaded in the petition (i) that Mata Shantanand was in occupation of property bearing No.204, Block No.7, Jheel Khureji Geeta Colony, Delhi since 1950; in the year 1951-52, she constructed a residence for herself "and also on the ground floor constructed a temple"; (ii) that transfer of the said property was made in favour of Mata Shantanand by Government of India, Ministry of Works, Housing and Rehabilitation on 26th December, 1956; (iii) that Mata Shantanand continued to reside in the said property and performed Pooja all by herself; (iv) that due to advancing age and ill health, she in the year 1980-81, appointed the petitioner Mr. Jagdish Prasad as Pujari and also provided accommodation to the petitioner in the premises; (v) that Mata Shantanand executed a Will dated 9th February, 1982 stating that she had no legal heir and that the petitioner herein only was looking after her and taking care of the temple and performing Pooja therein and expressed her desire that upon her demise, the property bearing No.7/204, Geeta Colony, Delhi would go in favour of petitioner; "it is very much clear that the Mandir stands bequeathed in favour of the petitioner Sh. Jagdish Prasad Goswami after her death"; (vi) that "all the original documents pertaining to the property including the Will in a cover were handed over to the petitioner by Mata Shantanand in a ceremony in presence of all the devotees"; (vii) that the deceased left no other legal heir or relation to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner; (viii) that the property subject matter of Will is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court; (ix) that the value of the property is Rs.20,25,000/-; (x) that no other application had been made in any Court of law for grant of probate regarding Will or letter of administration of the property left by Mata Shantanand; (xi) that though the petitioner is residing in the property since 1980-81 without any interruption but since some neighbours in the area claiming to be part and parcel of the temple have been threatening to dispossess the petitioner, the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi and in which interim protection had been granted. 3. Needless to state that in view of the pleadings aforesaid, except for the "State" no other person was impleaded as respondent or as close relative or having caveatable interest to the petition. 4. The petition was entertained and notice and citation thereof issued in the newspaper "Statesman" (New Delhi Edition). No objections were filed by anyone and the petitioner led ex-parte evidence. 5. Vide judgement dated 5th May, 2008, the petition was dismissed holding that the petitioner had failed to prove in accordance with law the document dated 9th February, 1982 of which probate as Will was sought. 6. The petitioner preferred FAO(OS) No.355/2008 which was allowed vide judgment dated 3rd March, 2015 and the petition restored for adjudication afresh on merits in accordance with law as discussed in the judgment of the Division Bench. 7. On remand, before this Bench, on 22nd September, 2015, the counsel for one Pujya Sadhvi Shantanand Smarak Samiti (Regd.) (PSSSS) appeared and stated that objections were being filed; opportunity was given to the counsel for the petitioner to file reply thereto. 8. PSSSS in its objections has pleaded (a)