HARVINDER SINGH Vs. RANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of the present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned exparte judgment and decree dated 6.4.1994 whereby the suit of the respondent No.1/plaintiff/daughter for declaration and injunction and partition of the properties of her father late Sh. Beant Singh was decreed. THE immovable property is 29/4, Double Storey, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. THE daughters, including the plaintiff, have also been bequeathed bank deposits in terms of the Will of Beant Singh

(2.) THE appellants were defendant Nos.1 and 5 in the suit. THEy filed a joint written statement alongwith defendant No.4 Sardar Amarjit Singh/respondent No.4. THEy, however, thereafter failed to appear and were proceeded exparte.

(3.) I am unable to agree with any of the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. So far as the first argument is concerned I may state that in the State of Delhi, probate of a Will is not compulsory. Probate of Will is only compulsory in the cities of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras or for properties situated in the cities of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta though the Will may be executed outside the three cities. This is a well settled law and there are many judgments of this Court which lay down so and which arises from a reading of Sections 57 and 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Two of these judgments are Pradeep Bhalla Vs. Sangeeta 2007 (94) DRJ 548 and Sanjay Gupta Vs. Ved Kanti Gupta 1994 (4) AD (Delhi) 330. The argument raised on behalf of the appellants is therefore not correct that the Civil Court could not have adjudicated upon the validity of the Will of Beant Singh.