LAWS(DLH)-2008-11-44

BHARAT BHUSHAN SISODIA Vs. STATE

Decided On November 27, 2008
BHARAT BHUSHAN SISODIA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Section 276 of the Indian succession Act, 1925 seeking Letter of Administration in respect of a registered Will dated 4-12-1998, executed by his father, late sh. Ranvir Singh Sisodia, who expired on 10-7-2004 in Delhi. On the date of his death, the father of the petitioner was survived by his widow, Smt. Chandra Kanta Sisodia (respondent No. 2), one daughter (respondent no. 3) and one son (respondent No. 4) excluding the petitioner. The names of all the relations of the deceased testator are indicated at page 16 of the petition,

(2.) THE present petition for grant of Letter of Administration was filed on 13-9-2007. Summons were issued in the present petition on 18-9-2007, returnable on 6-11-2007. A citation of the present petition was got published in the newspapers 'statesman' (Delhi Edition) dated 18-10-2007. It is pertinent to note that as one of the properties, subject matter of the Will left by the deceased testator is situated in Noida (UP), a citation was also got published on 18-10-2007, in the Hindi newspaper, 'dainik Jagran', having its circulation in UP.

(3.) THE service made upon the respondents No. 1 to 3 was recorded in the order dated 6-11 -2007. However, none appeared on their behalf, nor was any reply filed to the petition. Summons issued to respondent no. 4 were stated to have been received back with the report that he had expired. It may be noted that respondent No. 4, namely, Sh. Ashok Kumar Sisodia, the son of the deceased testator had expired in the. year 2007 itself. Pursuant thereto, an application being LA. No. 13435/2007 was filed by the petitioner for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No. 4. Notice was issued on the aforesaid application to the respondents No. 2 and 3 as well, as they were the legal heirs of the deceased respondents No. 4, apart from the petitioner. Despite notice being served on the aforesaid parties, as recorded in the order dated 13-2-2008, none appeared on behalf of the said respondents. As a result, the application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No. 4 was allowed, vide order dated 9-5-2008. Simultaneously, in view of the fact that none appeared on behalf of the remaining respondents No. 2 and 3 in their personal capacity as also as the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No. 4, it was directed that they be proceeded against ex-parte.