Facts of the case
The first respondent applied for probate of the Will (validation of the Will by the competent court) executed by Harbans Lal Joshi. The District Judge in Delhi ruled that the Will was valid and was executed while Harbans was of sound mind and granted the probate. The Delhi High Court then issued interim orders, preventing both the appellant and respondents from objecting to the development plan proposed by respondent 5. The Appellant challenged these orders, arguing that they took away vested rights and that the terms of the Will were too vague to be enforced, particularly when the appeal against the probate grant was still pending. The respondents argued that since the appellant had already accepted the Will’s genuineness in the District Court, they could not now question its validity.
Issue before the court
- Whether the vagueness or uncertainty of the Will, despite it being genuine, guarantees the grant of probate ?
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that if the contents of the Will are found to be vague despite the genuineness thereof, the grant of probate in favour of the first respondent may ultimately be declined. The High Court was not justified in passing interim orders in mandatory form. Thus, the challenged orders were set aside, and the High Court was requested to consider the desirability of disposing of the appeal as quickly as possible and preferably within 2 months.