Shambu P. Jaisinghani vs Kanayalal P. Jaisinghani And Ors.
1995 Latest Caselaw 712 Del

JUDGMENT

S.D. Pandit, J.

(1) Shambu P. Jaisinghani has filed this petition to obtain probate as regards the Will executed on 1.9.1960 by his mother Smt.Puribai, widow of Late Shri Prem Chand Jaisinghani.

(2) Petitioner Shambu P. Jaisinghani and respondents 1 & 2, viz. Kanayalal P. Jughani and Nanikram P. Jaisinghani are real brothers and sons of late Puribai widow of Late Shri Prem Chand Jaisinghani. In the year 1960 she was residing at Bhusawal with her son defendant no.1 and she was owning properties in Delhi and Udaipur.

(3) By her Will dated 1.9.1960 she bequeathed the property bearing Block No.28, House No.175, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, in favor of her son Kanayalal P. Jaisinghani, respondent No.1, whereas House No.1OO-C. Prasad Nagar, Udaipur is bequeathed by her in favor of the petitioner Shambu P. Jaisinghani. It was the last Will of Late Smt.Puribai and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra.

(4) It is the further claim of the petitioner that no probate or letters of administration in respect of the said Will were ever applied for and issued by any Court. The original Will was left in custody of his elder brother, Kanayalal Jaisinghani, respondent No.1. Therefore, he has produced the certified copy of the Will and has prayed for issue of probate in respect of the said Will in his favor.

(5) Petitioner has shown his two brothers as respondent NOS.1 & 2 in these proceedings. Notices were issued to both of them. Both of them have filed written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff and, thereby, not contesting the claim of the petitioner.

(6) Petitioner has examined himself as well as the present Sub-Registrar of Bhusawal. From the evidence of both of them it is quite clear that Puribai had executed the Will on 1.9.1960 and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. The petitioner has also deposed that the whereabouts of the two witnesses who had attested the said Will on 1.9.1960 are riot known and they are not traceable. He had called upon respondent No.1, Kanayalal Jaisinghani to produce the original Will but the respondent No.1 has not produced the same as, it seems, he has lost the same.

(7) In the above circumstances, the certified copy of the registered Will produced by the petitioner could be relied upon and accepted The Will is executed by the mother of the petitioner bequeathing some immoveable property in favor of the present petitioner and some immoveable property in favor of respondent No.1. The disposition of the immoveable property by her in favor of her son is quite natural. In additiona, the other sons have not only not disputed the claim of the petitioner but have also supported his claim. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, I hold that petitioner is entitled to claim and get probate in respect of the Will executed by his mother on 1.9.1960.

(8) The Will is executed by the mother in favor of the sons. As the mother has bequeathed the property to her natural heirs, it is not necessary to order the petitioner to give the administrative bond. This view is taken by this Court in the case of Probate Case No. 12/87 titled Subhash Chopra, etc. Vs. State, decided on 26.7.1989.

 (9) I, therefore, pass the following order:    "PROBATE be issued in favor of the petitioner in respect of the Will dated 1.9.1960 executed by his mother LateSmt.Puribai.   

 (10) Petitioner need not furnish any administrative bond.   

 (11) No order as to costs of these proceedings.