Madhya Pradesh High Court
Subhashchandra Jain (Dattak Putra) vs Ghanshyam Das on 6 January, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
MISC. PETITION No. 1683 of 2023
SUBHASHCHANDRA JAIN (DATTAK PUTRA)
Versus
GHANSHYAM DAS AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Manish Manana, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Kumar Mimrot, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Reserved on 04.12.2024)
(Pronounced on 06.01.2025)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the applicant/petitioner being aggrieved by the
order dated 20.02.2023 passed in MJCSUC No.16/2022 by the Third
District Judge, District Ujjain whereby his application under Order 1
Rule 10 read with section 151 of the CPC for being impleaded as a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4
party to the proceedings has been rejected.
2. Respondent No.1 has filed an application before the trial Court
for grant of probate to him in respect of a will executed by
Ramchandra in his favour. He has submitted that Ramchandra was
his father who has expired on 24.11.1993. On 16.04.1982 he had
bequeathed his entire estate in his favour by virtue of a will. A civil
suit was instituted in respect of certain property before First
Additional District Judge, Ujjain bearing C.S. No.15-A/1984 by
present petitioner which was dismissed by judgment and decree
dated 01.09.1998. The suit had been instituted by petitioner on the
basis of being adopted son of one Bherulal and his wife Sajanbai. It
was instituted against Ramchandra and Nandkishore. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree aforesaid petitioner has
preferred First Appeal No.304/2001 before this Court which has
been dismissed by order dated 17.05.2017. Against Ramchandra and
Nandkishore, Crime No.4611/1977 was registered at Police Station
Kotwali, District Ujjain forming subject matter of Session Trial
No.104/1977 before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain.
The same resulted in conviction of Ramchandra by judgment dated
28.04.1978. Criminal Appeal No.294/1978 preferred by Ramchandra
was allowed and he was acquitted by judgment dated 27.08.1981. In
paragraph No.117 the Session Court had directed that the seized
property and jewelry would be released as per the direction of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4
competent Court.
3. The application for impleadment was preferred by petitioner
on the ground that he had been adopted by Bherulal and his wife
Sajanbai. Bherulal had executed a will on 13.07.1965 in favour of
his wife Sajanbai. He expired on 31.05.1968. Thereafter Sajanbai
was kept by Ramchandra and Nandkishore and they turned him out
of the house. He hence had filed an application under Section 125 of
the Cr.P.C. against Sajanbai and had also filed a civil suit for
partition against her. Nandkishore and Ramchandra had murdered
Sajanbai. Prior to that Sajanbai had executed will on 21.01.1973 and
15.03.1971 in favour of the petitioner. Ramchandra and Nandkishore
fraudulently on 24.07.1973 got executed a will from Sajanbai which
was modified on 02.12.1975. In the criminal proceedings the seized
property was deposited in the District Treasury. Ramchandra had no
relation with Bherulal and for usurping his property had got executed
fraudulent documents from Sajanbai and had thereafter killed her.
Against the judgment dated 01.09.1998 passed by the trial Court
First Appeal No.304/2001 has been preferred before this Court
which has been dismissed in default for restoration of which MCC
No.1394/2022 has been preferred which is pending. It was hence
submitted that the petitioner is a necessary party to the proceedings.
The application was contested by respondent No.1 and has been
rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the record.
5. The claim of petitioner flows from his contention that he is
adopted son of late Bherulal and Smt. Sajanbai. However no
document has been produced by him in the proceedings to show that
he was adopted by them. There is no declaration by any Court of law
as yet that he is their adopted son. Thus the very basis of claim of the
petitioner has not been found proved and established as yet. Though
the petitioner had instituted a civil suit before the Civil Court
contending himself to be the adopted son of late Bherulal and Smt.
Sajanbai but therein his claim was negatived. First Appeal
No.304/2021 was preferred by the petitioner against the said
judgment and decree before this Court which has however been
dismissed for want of prosecution. Though an application bearing
MCC No.1394/2022 has been preferred for restoration of the said
First Appeal but the same is still pending and has not been allowed
meaning thereby that as on date the First Appeal stands dismissed.
As a corollary the judgment passed by the trial Court wherein the
claim of petitioner as adopted son of Bherulal and Sajanbai was
negatived is very much in existence and is in force.
6. Though proceedings against Ramchandra and Nandkishore
were instituted for committing murder of Sajanbai but they have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4
been acquitted therein. The present proceedings are for grant of
probate in respect of will dated 16.04.1982 executed in favour of
respondent No.1 by his father Ramchandra. They are not in respect
of any will executed by Bherulal or Smt. Sajanbai. The question to
be determined in these proceedings is as to whether the will was
executed by Ramchandra in favour of respondent No.1. Therein the
petitioner could have been having a right to object provided he was
in any manner either related to Ramchandra or could have claimed
any benefit under the will executed by him in favour of respondent
No.1. The claim of petitioner is only as regards being adopted son of
Bherulal and Sajanbai. He does not claim to be having any
relationship with Ramchandra and it is not his contention that he is
also a beneficiary or legatee of Ramchandra. Respondent No.1 is
having no interest in the property of Sajanbai and Bherulal. In the
proceedings for grant of probate in respect of will executed by
Ramchandra in favour of respondent No.1, the petitioner does not
have any legal interest to object to the same and for being considered
as a necessary or even a proper party. The disputed property does not
appear to be in any manner connected with the petitioner and even if
it is assumed that he is adopted son of Sajanbai and Bherulal still he
does not appear to be a person interested in the proceedings.
7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any
error having been committed by the Court below in rejecting the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4
application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC preferred by the
petitioner. The impugned order is accordingly affirmed, as a result of
which the petition is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
