UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No.38/2010
Date of Decision: February 04, 2010
ADESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Appellants
Through Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order of an Additional District Judge, dated September 07, 2009 dismissing a petition filed by them in the trial Court seeking revocation of grant of 'Letters of Administration' to respondents No.2 & 3 with respect to the 'Will' executed by late Shri Banwari Lal dated January 16, 1986.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the testator Banwari Lal was not the owner of the property in respect of which he executed the 'Will' in question and, therefore, no 'Letters of FAO No.38 of 2010 Page 1 of 2 Administration' could have been granted with regard to that Will. It is, however, not disputed that the appellants are tenants in the property in question and they are not claiming any right under the Will. It is also not disputed that pursuant to the grant of the 'Letters of Administration' qua the 'Will' in question, the beneficiaries under the 'Will' have sold the property to third parties. According to learned counsel for the appellants, an eviction suit is pending against them in the Court of an Additional Rent Controller, Karkardooma. The said suit has been filed against them by respondents No.2 & 3.
The learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the petition for revocation of grant of 'Letters of Administration' on the ground that the appellants being tenants have no locus-standi to challenge the 'Will'. I find no infirmity in the order so passed. The learned trial Judge while granting 'Letters of Administration' was not supposed to go into the question of title of the property. He was only required to examine, whether the 'Will' was duly executed which he did and passed an order in favour of the respondents. The said finding has not been called into question. The appeal, in the circumstances, is dismissed. However, it will be open to the appellants to raise before the Additional Rent Controller the plea that respondents No.2 & 3 herein have no locus to file the eviction petition against them. Any such plea if raised shall be decided by the Additional Rent Controller on its own merits.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
FEBRUARY 04, 2010 ka FAO No.38 of 2010 Page 2 of 2