Delhi High Court
Subhash Chand & Anr. vs The State & Ors. on 10 October, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.1/2017
% 10th October, 2017
SUBHASH CHAND & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Vijay Kishan Jetley,
Advocate.
versus
THE STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Parmod Kumar Singhal,
Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Learned counsel for the appellants argues two aspects for
challenging the impugned judgment dated 15.9.2016 passed by the
trial court granting letters of administration with respect to a Will
registered on 3.6.1993 of late Smt. Gobindi Devi.
2. The first aspect which is argued is that Smt. Gobindi Devi
was not the owner of that share of H.No. 230, Gali no.11, Anand
Parbat, Delhi-5 as mentioned in the Will because she was the owner in
fact only of a lesser share, and therefore, the letters of administration
could not have been granted.
3. Secondly it is argued that the grant of letters of
administration in Delhi is discretionary and since it is not mandatory
to apply for letters of administration, therefore, the letters of
administration could not have been granted in this case as Smt.
Gobindi Devi was not the owner of the share to the extent as stated in
the Will registered on 3.6.1993 in the property bearing H.No. 230 Gali
no.11, Anand Parbat, Delhi-5.
4. So far as the aspect that the probate court does not decide
title of a property, this principle also extends to the principle that the
probate court does not specify or decide what is the extent of
ownership interest of a deceased testator in a property. In fact it is for
this reason in para 52 of the impugned judgment it is stated by the trial
court that it is clarified that the question of title, share and ownership
of the aforementioned Anand Parbat property has not been decided by
the impugned judgment. This is rightly so observed by the trial court
because the question of extent of title or share of the deceased Smt.
Gobindi Devi in the aforesaid property would be decided in
appropriate civil proceedings between the parties. I therefore reiterate
what is stated in para 52 of the judgment of the trial court with the
further clarification that the extent of share of Smt. Gobindi Devi in
H.No. 230 Gali no.11, Anand Parbat, Delhi-5 is not decided by the
impugned judgment dated 15.9.2016 and which aspect will be decided
in any civil proceedings with respect to the aforesaid house bearing
no. 230, Gali no.11, Anand Parbat, Delhi-5.
5. So far as the second aspect that grant of letters of
administration is discretionary because it need not have been applied
for in Delhi, all that is required to be stated is that no doubt seeking of
letters of administration in Delhi is not mandatory but that does not
mean that letters of administration need not at all be applied for and
that it cannot be granted. In the present case, the letters of
administration has been granted and since the only grievance of the
appellants is that the Will registered on 3.6.1993 of Smt. Gobindi Devi
incorrectly describes her extent of share in H.No. 230 Gali no.11,
Anand Parbat, Delhi-5, it has already been clarified above that the title
and extent of share of Smt. Gobindi Devi in the aforesaid property will
be decided in appropriate civil proceedings which any of the parties
may choose to initiate.
6. No other issue is pressed on behalf of the appellants.
7. The appeal is therefore dismissed except to the extent of
observations made hereinabove.
OCTOBER 10, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
