Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Singh vs Mamta Devi on 5 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:13537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 1308 of 2023
----
1. Ashok Kumar Singh, aged about 59 years, Aadhar No.5111 9926
2. Barun Singh @ Arun Singh, aged about 56 years, Aadhar No.6644
2172 1438
Both sons of Late Guru Govind Singh, resident of Govind Bhawan
(Govind Palace), Anandpuri, Harmu, PO - Doranda, PS - Argora,
within the district of Ranchi .... Petitioners
-- Versus --
Mamta Devi, wife of Bibhakar Choudhary, resident of Old
Hazaribagh Road, Lah Kothi, Kanta Toli, PO - GPO, PS - Lower
Bazar, within the district of Ranchi .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Sambit Nayak, Advocate
:- Mr. Pradeep Kr. Nayak, Advocate
For the O.P. :- Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate
:- Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate
----
07/05.05.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 08.09.2023
passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV in Misc. Civil
Appl. No.16/2022 arising out of Probate Case No.77/2013 wherein
the petition filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 read with
Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the
learned Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
2025:JHHC:13537
the sole opposite party herein instituted a Probate Case No.77 of
2013 for probating an alleged will dated 31.12.2010 said to have
been executed by Guru Govind Singh, deceased father of the
present petitioners. He submits that during the pendency of the said
probate case, a petition was filed by the present petitioners under
Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for
impleading the State represented by the Khas Mahal Officers in the
probate case in view of the fact that the property itself is recorded
as Khas Mahal Lease Hold Property. He further submits that the
property in question appertains to Mauza - Konka, Thana No.198,
M.S. Plot No.26 and Khas Mahal Plot No.1027 which was leased out
to Guru Govind Singh that remained effective from 1st April, 1966
and to continue till 1st April, 1996 i.e. for a period of 30 years duly
executed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on behalf of the
Governor of the State of Bihar as it then was. He submits that Guru
Govind Singh was the father of the petitioners herein and the will
has been said to be executed in favour of the sole opposite party.
He submits that the said property is a government property and it
was khas mahal which has been leased out in terms of the above
lease and it is still in his possession in view of that the said petition
is filed which has been wrongly rejected by the learned Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party
opposes the prayer and submits that in the will learned Court is only
required to examine the genuineness of the will and the correct
2025:JHHC:13537
signature on the will. He submits in view of that the learned Court
has rightly passed the order and to buttress this argument he relied
in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon vs. Hardyal Singh Dhillon and Ors.
reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 306.
5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the case of
the sole opposite party is fully covered and this petition may kindly
be dismissed.
6. In view of above submission of learned counsel appearing
for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record
whereby it transpires that Guru Govind Singh is father of the
present petitioners and it has been said that Guru Govind Singh has
executed the will of the property in favour of sole opposite party.
The document brought on the record by way of Annexure-5 which is
Register II as well as Annexure-4 which is registered lease deed
clearly suggests that the said land was a khas mahal land and it was
leased out in favour of Guru Govind Singh and in this background
petition under Order I Rule 10 of CPC has been filed and in that
view of the matter in light of sub-section (c) of Section 283 the
citations are required to be made upon all persons claiming to have
any interest on the estate of the deceased and further if the probate
case is made contentious Section 295 is attracted and in view of
contentious issue it is required to be converted into suit and it will
be decided in terms of the provisions made under CPC.
2025:JHHC:13537
7. Admittedly, the documents brought on the record clearly
suggests that the property in question is khas mahal land. There is
no doubt that if only the genuineness of the will is required to be
decided in the probate case that will be decided on such citation in
light of sub-section (c) of Section 283. However, if any dispute is
being raised by way of interested person that is further required to
be considered by the learned Court and if contentious issue is found
it is required to be converted under Section 295. Thus, the
Succession Act complete statute itself. The Court finds that the
State is necessary party in the said probate case and in view of that
the impugned order dated 08.09.2023 is hereby set aside.
8. The petition filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10
dated 15.01.2022 is hereby allowed.
9. This petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/
A.F.R.
