Facts of the case
Har Bhagwan executed a Will on 9.9.1997 and died on 3.11.1997. The respondents are the four daughters of the testator (the person who made the Will, in this case, Har Bhagwan), who were beneficiaries under the Will. They filed for a grant of probate (legal validation of the Will by the competent court) in 2000, which was challenged by both sons of Har Bhagwan.
Raj Kumar, one of the sons, contested the probate proceedings and claimed under a different Will purportedly executed on 30.10.1997. Raj Kumar executed two sale deeds (Agreement of sale) on 20.6.2003 and 27.06.2003 in favour of Amit Pahwa. No probate was obtained for this alleged Will, and no objections were raised by the other heirs of the testator.
Amit Pahwa subsequently sold the properties to the appellant on 25.07.2003 and 29.08.2003. The appellant filed an application to be impleaded (joined as a party) in the probate proceedings, which was initially allowed but later reversed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.
Issue before the court
- Whether a purchaser of a property belonging to the deceased testator should be impleaded (joined as a party) in probate proceedings ?
Judgement
The court held that a transferee of a property (the party to whom the property has been transferred) during the pendency of probate proceedings is not a necessary party to such proceeding. Citations (legal notices) in probate proceedings are required to be made to those directly claiming under the Will or those disputing the execution of the Will.
The court referred to the case Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb, which held that a transferee pendente lite (during the pendency of proceedings) cannot be impleaded (included) as a party without the court's permission.