SNEHLATA BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant case, appellant No. 1 is the widow of Pradeep Singh Bhandari and appellant No. 2 is the son of Pradeep Singh Bhandari. Pradeep Singh Bhandari was the son of G.S. Bhandari. G.S. Bhandari predeceased his wife Smt. Durga Devi Bhandari. After the death of Smt. Durga Devi Bhandari, respondent No. 3, the daughter of G.S. Bhandari, purported to present a Will, allegedly executed by Smt. Durga Devi Bhandari, for registration before respondent No. 2, Sub -Registrar (Second), Haldwani. Respondent No. 2 has registered the said Will. Challenging the said registration, a writ petition was filed. In that, amongst others, it was contended that, in terms of the provisions of Section 169 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the subject Will was required to be registered by the Testator herself, inasmuch as, the Will dealt with bhumidhari right of the Testator. The learned Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, did not consider the said contention on the part of the appellant.

(2.) WE feel that the question, whether, by the Will, bhumidhari right has been transferred or not, has not yet cropped up. The same Will crop up only when, on the strength of the Will, the alleged beneficiary thereunder will seek a direction for transfer of the bhumidhari right of the Testator in her favour. We have not gone into the question at this stage, whether, by reason of Section 169 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, read with Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration Act, 1908, it was a requirement for the Testator herself to register the Will or not, inasmuch as, by and under the purported Will, the Testator purportedly devised also those properties, which cannot be called bhumidhari rights. Inasmuch as the Will cannot be truncated into two or scissored, one in respect of the bhumidhari rights and the other in respect of the other rights, we have only proceeded to find out, whether the Registrar, in the matter of registering the Will in question, acted in excess of his authority.

(3.) WE think that, under Clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 41 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Registrar had the obligation of satisfying that the Will, or the instrument purporting to be Will, was executed by the testator. If the Registrar was satisfied about the execution of the purported Will by the testator, he certainly could register the Will. However, we make it absolutely clear that satisfaction of the Registrar that the Will was executed by the testator is no certificate that the same was executed in fact by the testator. At the same time, registration of a Will does not give more authenticity to the Will. An unregistered Will or a registered Will has no difference. A Will will come into force only when the same is accepted by a competent court to be a Will executed by the testator, who is supposed to have executed the same. This opinion of the court may be had by applying for probate or letters of administration annexed with the Will or in any other collateral proceedings.