Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Appellants: Manju Puri (LR of younger daughter of Testator)
Respondent: Rajiv Singh Hanspal & Others (LR of eldest Daughter)
Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ
Date Of Appeal: 2019
Date Of Judgement: Thu Nov 14 2019
Surjan Singh Randhawa and his brother Bachittar Singh Randhawa bought property in the name of their respective wives. Surjan had two daughters and, in 1961, made a Will leaving his share of the property to his eldest daughter, Smt. Gian Hanspal. He passed away in 1962. Later, his wife, Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa, executed a gift deed in favour of Gian Hanspal. Meanwhile, Surjan's brother applied for probate (legal confirmation of the will's validity), which was granted. In 1982, the younger daughter, Beena Mehra, filed a partition suit claiming that after their mother’s death, the property should be divided between both sisters. In 1988 Gian Hanspal died during the pendency of the suit. However, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution, and Gian Hanspal’s son later sold the property. Beena Mehra died in 2008. In 2010, Beena's daughter (the appellant in this case) discovered the probate grant and, in 2011, filed for its revocation, arguing that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) allegedly signed by Beena Mehra was forged and that Beena was never issued legal citations (official court notices) despite being a legal heir. She also argued that the 1982 partition suit never mentioned the Will or probate but was on the basis of the gift deed executed in favour of eldest daughter. However, the High Court dismissed her argument, stating that Beena Mehra was not entitled to citations and that the suit was barred by limitation (filed too late). The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision in an appeal and held that the relevant discretion was exercised in rejecting the application for revocation of the grant of probate. Hence, this appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had no solid evidence to conclude that there was an inordinate delay in filing the case. The appellant’s mother and others involved in the probate proceedings never provided any proof that she knew about the probate earlier. Since the appellant filed the case right after she checked the probate records in 2011, the delay could not be held against her. The court also found that the Single Judge has erred in granting probate in 1982 because proper citations (legal notices) were not sent to all relevant people, and the authenticity of the No Objection Certificates (NOCs) was never properly verified. The court further stated that accepting NOCs from people disinherited in a Will without verifying them in court or allowing them to file objections could lead to unfair results and harm those unaware of the proceedings.
The court also touched on the aspect of discretion (entrusted powers which are not obligatory to be exercised by the Court) of the court u/s 283.
The citation shall be fixed up in some conspicuous part of the court-house, and also the office of the Collector of the district and otherwise published or made known in such manner as the Judge or District Delegate issuing the same may direct.
Where any portion of the assets has been stated by the petitioner to be situate within the jurisdiction of a District Judge in another State, the District Judge issuing the same shall cause a copy of the citation to be sent to such other District Judge, who shall publish the same in the same manner as if it were a citation issued by himself, and shall certify such publication to the District Judge who issued the citation.
Sec. 283 makes use of the term ‘may’ which had been argued to confer discretion to the District Judge to issue citation or not. The court held that although discretion is given to the District Judge, this is to be exercised with proper care and in accordance with circumstances. Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Original Side), 1914 also contemplate rules in cases of issuance of citations in testamentary suits. According to Rule 9, citations need not be issued if the person has signified their consent, which was contended to have been signified by the respondents through the NOCs. However, the court rejected this contention as Rule 9 only spoke of LOAs and not of probates. Thus, the court held that this was not the case where the District Court should have used its discretion for non-issuance of citations.
The most effective way to shape your future is by taking action today.
Disclaimer: Please note My Legacy Box ("formerly Oiconomos") is not a law company/firm and does not offer legal advisory. Though materials, software, and services are available to use publicly, they cannot substitute legal counsel by legal practitioners. We do not endorse or solicit the work of any legal counselor.