ARTI KAPAHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of petition for grant of letter of administration under the provisions of Indian Succession Act in respect of estate of Sh. Atul Kapahi, s/o. Sh. B.K. Kapahi, r/o. S -4, Greater Kailash -I, New Delhi who died on 14.11.2000.

(2.) THE petition is filed by Smt. Arti Kapahi, wife of deceased Sh. Atul Kapahi contending that mother of the deceased had pre -deceased him. At the time of the death of Sh. Atul Kapahi he was survived besides petitioner, by his father Sh. B.K. Kapahi. The petitioner contended that she was married to the deceased on 11.10.1986, however, the petitioner and Sh. Atul Kapahi started living separately from 2.12.1994 and divorce proceedings were also filed being HMA No. 195/95. However, on account of the demise of Sh. Atul Kapahi, the divorce proceedings have become infructuous and the petitioner continues to be legally wedded wife of the deceased.

(3.) THE petition was contested by Sh. B.K. Kapahi father of the deceased contending that no Will was executed and, therefore, letter of administration cannot be granted. The valuation of the properties given in Schedule A of the properties by the petitioner were also denied and it was denied that the deceased was the owner of Shop No. 36 -36A, Edmnton Mall, Bristol Hotel, Gurgaon (Haryana). The objector denied that the total valuation of the estates of the deceased is approximately Rs. 69,90,000/ -. It was categorically denied that shop No. B -4, Saraswati House, 27, Nehru Place, New Delhi belonged to the deceased. The objector contended that the possession of the said shop was taken by him and continues to be in his possession and his property and the deceased had no right over it. It was asserted that the said property has been included by the petitioner in Schedule of property of the deceased with a view to coerce and pressurize the respondent/objector. The objector also contended that the estate of the deceased is indebted to him for an amount of Rs. 10,30,000/ - on account of advance taken by deceased from him at different times. The objector also contended that Sh. Atul Kapahi deceased had migrated to Canada and settled there and also died at Canada.