DHARAM DEVI Vs. BISHAMBER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein Shri Bishamber Nath filed an application under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the grant of probate of the will dated 26-2-1960 alleged to have been executed in his favour by one Shri Tilla Ram alias Tara Singh S/o Shri Ganga Ram. According to this application, the said testator was not married and had left no issue. The other relations of the testator were impleaded as respondents in the said application. None of them contested the application and, therefore, probate of the will was granted in favour of the respondent herein by the District Judge by his order dated 7-10-1968. Ther after, the present appellants filed an application on 28-1-1969 under section 263 of the Act for revocation of the probate granted to the respondent. The main grounds on which the revocation of the probate was asked for were that the respondent had sup- pressed certain material facts in his application for grant of pro- bate and also that he had not impleaded the necessary parties in the said application. According to the appellants, the properties covered by the will for which the probate was granted did not belong to Shri Tilla Ram alias Tara Singh S/o Shri Ganga Ram as alleged by the respondent but belonged to Shri Tilla Ram S/o Shri Ram Chand. It was further alleged that the said Tilla Ram S/o Shri Ram Chand had married during his life-time and had also left his widow and a daughter surviving him. The appellants themselves were tenants of the house belonging to the said Tilla Ram S/o Shri Ram Chand. The legal heirs of Shri Tilla Ram S/o Ram Chand had taken part in the proceedings before the Estate Officer of the Land Development Officer, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi, under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. The respondent also took part in the said proceedings. As the respondent had misrepresented the name of the testator as Tilla Ram alias Tara Singh S/o Shri Ganga Ram and had also suppressed the material facts stated above, the probate granted in favour of the respondent was liable to be revoked.

(2.) The respondent contested the petition filed by the appellants and asserted that he had not suppressed any material facts in his application for the grant of probate and that the property in question did not belong to Shri Tilla Ram S/o Shri Ram Chand but belonged to Shri Tilla Ram alias Tara Singh S/o Shri Ganga Ram and that, therefore, it was not necessary for him to implead either the legal heirs of Shri Tilla Ram S/o Shri Ram Chand or the appellants who were not his legal heirs.

(3.) On issue No. 2, it was held that there was hardly any reliable evidence to justify a finding that Bhagat Singh was the son of Tara Singh who had executed the will and that, therefore, the respondent was not guilty of any suppression of material facts by not showing Bhagat Singh as the son of the testator Tara Singh. On issue No. 3, it was held that the probate Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question of the title in respect of the property covered by the will and that if the appellants who are the legal heirs of Tilla Ram S/o Ram Chand, claimed any rights in respect of the said property, it was open to them to file a regular suit. Therefore, the petition filed by them under section 263 of the Act was dismissed. The appellants have filed the present appeal against the said judgment of the learned District Judge.