SATISH CHANDER SABHARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A family dispute and the consequent challenge to the Will dated 06.11.1990 of late Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal has given rise to the present proceedings. The appellants filed probate proceedings before the trial court, but learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) vide Order dated 06.03.2000 dismissed the petition holding that the Will was a suspicious document. The appellants aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal being FAO No. 181/2000, which was also dismissed by learned Single Judge on 14.10.2004 and the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the said Order.

(2.) The primary contention of learned senior counsel for the appellants was that there was no reasons really recorded for the conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge and since it was a first appealable order, findings and discussion ought to have been made both on facts and law. A perusal of the Order showed that the facts recorded by learned ADJ had been reproduced by learned Single Judge verbatim and thereafter the contentions of th'e parties were noted. The evidence has thereafter been reproduced under the headings of different contentions raised. The conclusion is thereafter recorded only in para 6 stating that taking into consideration totality of the circumstances, the Will was a sham document. The same is recorded as under :-

(3.) In view of the aforesaid plea and taking into consideration that it was a first appeal being heard by learned Single Judge and apart from the aforesaid conclusion, there was no other discussion on appreciation of evidence, it was put to learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 7 whether they would be agreeable to the impugned order being set aside and the matter being remanded back for fresh decision by learned Single Judge. However, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 7 stated that the said respondents are not agreeable to the same and he would like adjudication on the preliminary objection raised about the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal. This was so as the contention of learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 7 was that in view of the pronouncements of the Apex Court, the Letters Patent Appeal would not be maintainable. Faced with this situation, there was no option but to decide the issue first about the maintainability of the appeal.