Delhi High Court
Shri Satpal vs The State & Ors. on 8 May, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO Nos. 174/1996 & FAO 555/1999
%
8th May, 2014
+ FAO 174/1996
SHRI SATPAL ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Manu Nayar, Mr. Praveen Jha &
Ms. Nisha Rawat, Advocates.
VERSUS
THE STATE & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: None.
+ FAO No. 555/1999
SHRI SATPAL ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Manu Nayar, Mr. Praveen Jha &
Ms. Nisha Rawat, Advocates.
VERSUS
SH. GURBAX RAI WADHAWAN. ...... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal was filed against the impugned judgment of the probate
court dated19.2.1996 whereby the probate petition filed by the petitioner,
FAO 174/`1996 & 555/1999 Page 1 of 3
son of Shri Kundan Lal Wadhawan and Smt. Karam Devi Wadhawan
claiming probate of the Will dated 20.6.1977 of Smt. Karam Devi
Wadhawan was dismissed.
2. The claim under the Will of Karam Devi Wadhwan had arisen
because there were disputes as regards rights in the immovable property
bearing No. 1453-54, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti, New Delhi. Counsel for
the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by this
Court on 15.4.2010, and which reads as under:-
"It is stated by learned counsels that a suit for possession
with regard to the property in question has been filed by
the respondent in the trial court on the basis of probate
granted in his favour with respect to the 'Will' executed by
the father of the parties. The said suit is at the stage of
final arguments. It will be appropriate if this appeal is
heard after the disposal of that suit. The trial court is
therefore directed to hear the matter pending before it and
dispose of the same within six months from now. The
appeal be listed after the decision of the trial court in the
suit."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant says that now the civil court of Ms.
Anjani Mahajan, CJ-02, District (North), Tis Hazari Courts has passed the
judgment on 2.1.2013 by which the suits for possession and injunction filed
by Shri Gurbaksh Rai Wadhawan, and who is the contesting respondent in
this appeal, has been dismissed. The suits for injunction and possession
were with respect to the Rani Bagh property. Because the suits are
FAO 174/`1996 & 555/1999 Page 2 of 3
dismissed, counsel for the appellant says that the appellant will have
ownership rights in the suit premises in view of the Section 27 of the
Limitation Act, 1963.
4. In view of the fact that the suits of the contesting respondent against
the appellant have been dismissed by the judgment dated 2.1.2013, for that
reason, this appeal is not pressed because the judgment dated 2.1.2013 has
become final and has not been challenged by the contesting respondent
herein and who was the plaintiff in the suits before the trial court. In view of
the aforesaid position, counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal
and prays for liberty to revive this appeal in case there is a successful
challenge to the judgment dated 2.1.2013 passed in Suit No. 966/06.
5. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed as not pressed with
liberty to the appellant to revive this appeal in case the judgment dated
2.1.2013 passed in the suits for possession and injunction by the contesting
respondent herein are for any reason set aside.
6. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
May 08, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
nk
