Renu Brij vs State And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 6998 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+     TEST.CAS. 109/2011


      RENU BRIJ                 ..... Petitioner

            Through            Mr. Jagjit Singh with Mr.Bhagat Singh,
                               Advs.


                  versus


      STATE AND ORS                    ..... Respondent
               Through         Ms.JyotiKataria Proxy Adv. for Mr. B.S. Dhir
                               for D-2 to 5

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

                  ORDER

% 06.12.2012

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under sections 213,

228, 273 ofIndian Succession Act, 1925 read with section 41 of Indian

Evidence Act and Section 13 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking re-

endorsement over the probate already granted in favour of the petitioner

by a foreign court in respect of the Will dated 12.3.2009 executed by her

husband, late Sh. RusiBrij who died on 20.5.2009 in New Jersey,USA.

Copy of the death certificate is placed on record. Respondent nos. 2 and

3 are son and daughter, Respondent no.4 is the mother and respondent

no. 5 is the brother of the testator.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the said Will, the

deceased appointed Petitioner as beneficiary as well as Executor to the

1 of 3 said Will. It is averred in the plaint that the testator, Sh. RusiBrij

executed his last Will and testament on 12.3.2009 bequeathing his entire

movable and immovable properties in favour of his wife, the Petitioner

herein, to the exclusion of his other legal heirs, namely, his two children

(Respondent nos. 2 & 3).. Respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5 are

impleaded as parties to the case because they along with the testator

have 1/3rd share each in aforesaid immovable properties of the petitioner

located in India, namely, A-3/509 Milan Vihar , Plot No. 72, IP Extention,

Patparganj, New Delhi 110092 and A-502, Sun City, Sector 52, Gurgaon,

Haryana.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the probate has already been

granted in his favour by the competent court at New Jersey, USA and the

petitioner has now come before this court to seek re-endorsement over

the probate granted in his favour with respect to the properties situated

within India. In support of this, the petitioner has placed on record a true

and certified copy of the probate granted by the Middlesex Surrogate

Court, New Jersey, USA.

4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and examined the

documents placed on record.

5. Petitioner has filed his evidence by way of his affidavit and the

affidavits of the two attesting witnesses to the Will who testified that the

facts narrated in the petition are true and correct. The written statement

averring no objection to the contents of the petition is filed by the

Respondent nos. 2 to 5 in which they clearly state that they admit the

2 of 3 petition and have no objection if the probate is granted in favour of the

petitioner in respect of the Will dated 12.3.2009 executed by late Sh.

RusiBrij in respect of his estate (both movable and immovable) situated

in India. They also aver in the written statement that this no objection to

the probate is executed by them with their free will and consent without

any force, coercion or undue influence from any corner whatsoever.

6. In the absence of any opposition to the petition and in view of the

deposition by way of affidavits of the petitioner's witnesses, which is un-

rebutted, the averments made in the petition stands proved.

7. On perusal of the certified copy of the probate granted by the

Middlesex Surrogate Court, New Jersey, USA, I am satisfied that the

probate granted in favour of the petitioner is granted by a competent

court at New Jersey, USA, it has not been obtained by fraud,it has been

granted on merits, etc. as per the requirements of section 13 C.P.C.

6. Accordingly, the present petition for re-endorsement over the

probate already granted in favour of the petitioner by a foreign court is

allowed with regard to the respective shares in the movable and

immovable properties of late Sh. RusiBrij situated in India, subject to the

petitioner filing the security bond and the requisite court fee on the value

of the immovable properties.

7. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

                                                  KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
DECEMBER       06, 2012

                                    3 of 3
 4 of 3