Delhi High Court
Rajesh Sondhi & Another vs State & Another on 12 July, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on May 17, 2016
Judgment delivered on July 12, 2016
+ TEST.CAS. 108/2014
RAJESH SONDHI & ANOTHER ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.C. Anand, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kunal Anand, Adv. /
Proxy Counsel for Ms.
Khushboo Sahu, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
TEST.CAS. 108/2014
1. This is a petition under Sections 276 and 290 of the Indian
Succession Act, for grant of Letters of Administration with Will dated
13th October, 1988 of Late Shri Gurdial Singh Panesar in favour of
petitioner no.1 subject to payment of Court Fees in respect of property
at Village Bissaula as shown in the list of properties at Annexure P-5,
even though in the prayer clause it has been stated that the question of
lease hold property at Delhi Cantt, may be left open for future as the
petitioners are not entitled to it.
2. It is suffice to state that the statement was made by petitioner no. 1
during his evidence that the Will dated 13th October, 1988 (Exh.PW1/1)
does not cover the property situated at Delhi Cantt and he is not claiming
any right or share in the property.
3. The case set up by the petitioner no.1 in the petition is that
petitioner is a Citizen of India and is a permanent resident of Delhi and
managing agricultural farming at Village-Bissaula Pargana, Hastinapur,
Tehsil Mawana, District-Meerut (UP). The petitioner no.2 is a HUF,
which has been made a party only on the ground that the substantial
payments have been made from the HUF to Late Shri Gurdial Singh
Panesar in relation to subject property for which Letters of
Administration are sought.
4. According to the petitioner, the instant petition pertains to the
Estate of Late Shri Gurdial Singh Panesar, who was a permanent resident
of III-4/53, Shastri Bazar, Delhi Cantt. In so far as property at Village
Bissaula, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh is concerned, it is the case of the
petitioner no.1 that even after confiscation of more than 20 Bighas of his
land under the UP Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Act, late Shri
Gurdial Singh Panesar still owned 60 Bighas 2 Biswas and 15 Biswansis
of agricultural land in Khasra Nos. 2/9, 6, 12, 15, 19, 41 and 316 in
Village Bissaula, Pargana, Hastinapur, Tehsil Mawana, District Meerut,
Uttar Pradesh since 1950 as "Snakramniya Bhumidhar" with
transferrable rights. He left behind a Will dated 13 th October, 1988, in
which he bequeathed the land to the petitioner no.1. Sh. Gurdial Singh
Panesar died on 18th April, 1991. His original death certificate is placed
on record. The notice on the petition was issued by this Court to the
State and the Chief Revenue Controlling Officer with a direction to file
Valuation Report. Citation was also issued in The Statesman, Delhi
Edition and Dainik Jagran, which has a circulation in Uttar Pradesh. The
Citations issued in the aforesaid Newspapers have been placed on record.
The Valuation Report dated 11th December, 2015 has been filed by the
concerned authority, which is placed on record.
5. Respondent no. 2 who is the son of Late Sh. Gurdial Singh
Panesar has filed objections to the Petition wherein he has stated that the
Will dated 13th October, 1988 relied upon by the petitioner no. 1 covers
the property at Village Bissaula, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh and does
not cover the property at Delhi Cantt. In so far as the Will dated 13 th
October, 1988 is concerned, the answering respondent no. 2 has stated
that he has no reason to dispute the signature of his father as it appears to
be ex-facie correct. He has also stated that he does not have any reason
to dispute the signature of Sh. Trilok Singh, witness no.1 of the Will as
the same also appears to be ex-facie correct. In so far as the other
witnesses are concerned, he has stated that he is not aware of the other
two witnesses, being witnesses Nos. 2 and 3 of the said Will. He does
not admit their signatures or due witnessing by them. According to him
if the Will dated 13th October, 1988 is not duly proved by the petitioner,
then the said property at Village Bissaula will naturally devolve on the
answering respondent no. 2 and his relations.
6. The petitioner no. 1 has filed the affidavits of attesting witness
being PW-2 Sardar Gagan Deep Singh, witness at serial no.2 of the Will
dated 13th October, 1988 and PW-3 Rajesh Gupta witness at serial no.3
of the Will dated 13th October, 1988 as Annexures. The petitioner no.1
has also filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein he
reiterates the contents of the petition and exhibited the Will dated 13 th
October, 1988 as Ex.PW1/1, original Death Certificate of Late Sh.
Gurdial Singh Panesar as Ex.PW1/2, the affidavits of the two witnesses
of the Will dated 13th October, 1988 as PW1/3 and PW1/4. According to
him, the witness no.1 of the Will, Shri Trilok Singh is dead. Petitioner
no.1 also states that he and his HUF made substantial payments to Late
Sh. Gurdial Singh Panesar and he had also executed Power of Attorney
and Agreement to Sell in his favour in addition to the said Will in respect
of the said land at Village Bissaula, District Meerut, UP and he is in
possession thereof since 1978. He also states that during the lifetime of
the Testator of the Will, Late Sh. Gurdial Singh Panesar by utilizing his
Power of Attorney, he had sold 1 bigha 1 biswa and 14 biswanis of land
by Registered Sale Deed, which is entered in the Revenue Records in the
name of the concerned purchaser. Therefore, 59 bighas, 1 biswa and 1
biswani was left in the share of the Testator in the Village Bissaula. He
further states that during the lifetime of the Testator of the Will, late Sh.
Gurdial Singh Panesar, by utilizing his Power of Attorney, he had also
sold 3 bighas 4 biswas by registered sale deed, which is not yet entered
in the Revenue Records in the name of the concerned purchaser.
Thereafter, 55 bighas, 17 biswas and 1 biswani of land was left in the
share of the Testator in the Village Bissaula. Petitioner no. 1 also states
in his affidavit that delay has occurred in the instant case as he has learnt
about the death of the Testator at a very late stage and the Will and the
other relevant papers which had been kept in the safe custody of his wife
were not readily traceable and happened to be discovered only after her
death. He has also stated that the list of properties of late Sh. Gurdial
Singh Panesar is annexed as Ex. PW1/5. It may be stated here, that in
terms of the Will dated 13th October, 1988 (Ex.PW1/1), the testator has
bequeathed, the land with Khasra Nos. 2/9, 6, 12, 15, 19, 41 and 316
stating to be measuring approx 54 bighas, whereas as per Ex.PW1/5, the
land (at serial no.2) comprising of the Khasras 2/9, 6, 12, 15, 19, 41 and
316 is shown to be 55 bighas 17 biswas 1 biswansi. In other words, the
Letters of Administration is also being prayed for the extra land
measuring 1 bigha 17 biswas 1 biswani.
7. The statement of the petitioner no.1 was recorded on SA. He
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein he relied
upon the Will dated 13th October, 1988 as Ex.PW1/1 and original death
Certificate of Late Shri Gurdial Singh Panesar as PW1/2, affidavits of
witness No.2 and witness No.3 of the Will dated 13th October, 1988 as
exhibits PW1/3 and PW1/4 and also list of properties Ex.PW1/5. He
was cross-examined by the counsel for the respondent no.2. The witness
at serial no.2 of the Will dated 13th October, 1988Ex.PW1/1, PW2 Sardar
Gagan Deep Singh, son of Late Sardar Niranjan Singh also tendered his
affidavit Ex.PW2/A. He was also cross-examined. Similarly, attesting
witness at serial no. 3 of the Will dated 13th October, 1988 Ex.PW1/1,
PW-3 Rajesh Gupta, son of Late Shri Suraj Bhan Gupta also tendered his
affidavit Ex.PW3/A and was cross-examined by the counsel for the
respondent no. 2. Thereafter, statement of counsel for the respondent no.
2 was recorded on 18th January, 2016, wherein she has stated that
respondent no.2 does not wish to lead any evidence. On the said
statement, which was recorded separately, the evidence of the respondent
no. 2 was closed.
8. In so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, Mr. S.C. Anand,
learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 would submit that specific
averments have been made in Para 3 of the petition that Late
Sh. Gurdial Singh Panesar was a permanent resident of III-4/53, Shastri
Bazar, Delhi Cantt. The Will dated 13th October, 1988 (Ex.PW1/1) has
been executed at Delhi as is clear from the attestation made by the
Notary at Delhi. That part, attesting witnesses PW2 and PW3 have
deposed that the Will was signed by them at the residence of the testator
and the petitioner no.1, beneficiary, is a resident of Delhi. He would rely
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Karamjit Jaiswal v.
Investee Trust (Jersy) Limited and Ors. 180 (2011) DLT 15 wherein
this Court has held that where the Wills have been executed at Delhi by
the deceased, who had the residence within the jurisdiction of this Court
and the beneficiary of the Will is also a residence of the Delhi, this Court
would have the jurisdiction. It is also submitted by Mr. Anand that
petitioner no.1 being a single beneficiary, the requirement of
Administration Bond and Surety Bond under Section 291 and Exhibition
of Inventory of Account under Section 317 are superfluous in his case
and need not be imposed. He would rely upon the order of this Court
dated 11th March, 2014 passed in Testimonial Case No. 4/2012, Ursula
Lulse Broexkes-De v. State which in turn refers to the Judgment of this
Court in the case of Sanjay Suri v. State 3003 (71) DRJ 446 and Richa
Pardeshi v. State 2012 (131) DRJ 92 to contend that the petitioner in
that case, being the sole beneficiary / sole legatee having been exempted
from furnishing Administration Bond as mandated under Section 291 of
the Act, was exempted from complying with the provisions of Section
317 of the Act.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 states that
he has no objection for grant of Letters of Administration as long as the
same does not concern the property at Delhi Cantt. The counsel
concedes to the fact that respondent no. 2 has not led any evidence
opposing the grant of Letters of Administration.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in so far as the
issue of jurisdiction is concerned, it is stated in the petition by the
petitioner no.1 that the Testator Late Sh. Gurdial Singh Panesar was a
permanent resident of III-4/53, Shastri Bazar, Delhi Cantt. It is also
stated in Para 12 of the petition that he owned the said property on
leasehold basis from Delhi Cantonment Board from 1930 till about 2020
AD. It is also stated that the Will dated 13th October, 1988 (Ex.PW1/1)
was executed at Delhi.
11. I note on the issue of jurisdiction, this Court in Karamjeet Singh
(Supra) has held that the Will has been executed at Delhi, the Testator
had a residence within the jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff in
the said case, who was the sole beneficiary of the Will was the resident
of Delhi held that this Court had the jurisdiction. In the present case, no
doubt, in the Will dated 13th October, 1988, (Ex.PW1/1) the resident of
the Testator was shown to be at Chandigarh, however, specific
averments have been made in the petition that the Testator was a
permanent resident of III-4/53, Shastri Bazar, Delhi Cantt and the Will
(Ex.PW1/1) was executed at Delhi. The said averments have not been
contested by the respondent no.2. That apart, the sole beneficiary, i.e.,
petitioner no. 1 is also a resident of Delhi as is seen from the Petition.
Accordingly, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present
petition.
12. That in view of the fact, there is no opposition to the present
petition and the Will dated October 13, 1988 Ex.PW1/1, is the last and
final Will in respect of the agricultural land of Late Shri Gurdial Singh
Panesar, which stands proved and the list of immovable properties of the
testator Ex.PW1/5 with regard to property at serial No.2 also stands
proved, there is no impediment for grant of Letters of Administration.
The Letters of Administration with Will dated October 13, 1988
Ex.PW1/1 of late Gurdial Singh Panesar in respect of property at serial
No.2 of the list of properties Ex.PW1/5 is granted in favour of petitioner
No.1, on payment of court fees. As the petitioner has relied upon the
order of this Court in Testamentary Case No.04/2012 dated March 11,
2014 Ursula Lulse Broexkes-De v. State (Supra) and being a sole
beneficiary of the Will dated 13th October, 1988 (Ex.PW1/1), is
exempted from furnishing the Administration Bond as mandated under
Section 291of the Act, so also complying with the provisions of Section
317 of the Indian Succession Act. The petition is disposed of.
IA 7684/2015
Dismissed as infructuous.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
JULY 12, 2016/jg
