Manju Puri v. Rajiv Singh Hanspal

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.