Sarla Gupta v. The State & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

DECEMBER 18, 2017 "bs"/pp (corrected and released on 6th January, 2018)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 18th December, 2017 + TEST.CAS.15/2016 & IAs No.2463/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC), 13295/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) & 4830/2017 (of R-2 u/S 151 CPC). SARLA GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Adv. Versus THE STATE & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav and Ms. Ruchira, Advs. for R-2. Mr. Puneet Gupta and Mr. Sangam Kumar Jha, Advs. for R-6 to 8, 10 & 11. Ms. Chandrani Prasad and Mr. Chirag Mahalwal, Advs. for R-12 to 15. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This order is in continuation of the earlier order dated 13th December, 2017. 2. The main counsel Mr. Anil Sharma, for the petitioner, has not appeared today also and Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate who had appeared on 13th December, 2017 appears today also. 3. Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate is not even conscious of the query which was made to him on 13th December, 2017 and resultantly has no answer to the same. He only states that the stay should not be vacated. 4. I had on 13th December, 2017 enquired from Mr. Jaskaran Singh, counsel for the petitioner, about the maintainability of this petition under Section 276/278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of Letters of Administration, observing that the proceedings for grant of Letters of Administration being summary in nature, wherein the right of the parties cannot be decided and if rights claimed by the petitioner are to be established, it is to be by way of a suit and not by way of a petition seeking Letters of Administration. 5. I have today again considered the said question and perused the petition. 6. The petitioner has approached this Court, pleading (i) that the deceased Shakuntala Devi was the owner of property No.10, Bengali Market, Bazar Lane, New Delhi; (ii) that the husband of the deceased Shakuntala Devi pre-deceased her and the deceased Shakuntala Devi was issueless and has left the petitioner and the respondents No.2 to 11 as her only Class II heirs; (iii) that the deceased Shakuntala Devi had not executed any Will during her lifetime, while being possessed of sound state of mind; (iv) that after the death of her husband, the deceased Shakuntala Devi was not in her perfect state of mind and was suffering from various ailments and was visually impaired; (v) that the petitioner being one of the Class II heirs of the deceased Shakuntala Devi is entitled to maintain this petition seeking Letters of Administration; and, (vi) that the respondents No. 2 to 10 are contemplating to create third party interest with respect to the property, to deprive the petitioner from her legitimate share in the property aforesaid. 7. The respondents No.2 & 5 to 11 filed joint objections to the aforesaid petition, setting up a document claimed to be the validly executed last Will of the deceased Shakuntala Devi. 8. None appears for the respondents No.3&4. 9. The counsels for respondents No.2 & 5 to 11 state that respondents No.2 & 5 to 11, besides one Rajesh Bansal, are the beneficiaries under the document claimed to be the Will of the deceased Shakuntala Devi. It is further stated that the said Rajesh Bansal has not been impleaded as a party to this petition; that the said Rajesh Bansal has died; that the respondents No.3&4 have been served and have not been appearing. 10. It was in the aforesaid context that the question arose, whether the dispute as arises from the pleadings aforesaid, is to be decided in a petition seeking Letters of Administration by one of the persons claiming to be the natural heir of the deceased. 11. The adjudication of the dispute would entail adjudication of the question, whether the document set up by respondent No.2 & 5 to 11 is the validly executed last Will of the deceased Shakuntala Devi. 12. The petition though is titled as under Section 276/278 of the Indian Succession Act but Section 276 provides for an application for probate or for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. The plea in the