RAKSHPAL SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATTER in controversy entails the genuineness of the Will dated 4.4.1990 allegedly executed by one Amarnath Singh, who breathed his last on 20.6.1997. This Will was in favour of one of his sons Harbhajan Singh, who applied for the Probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act impleading his remaining three brothers, namely, Rakshpal Singh, Jogendar Singh, Surendra Singh/his widow as the opposite parties. This Petition No. 11/2001 seeking the Probate was pending in the Court of District Judge, Haridwar, and up to 5.10.2001, there was no service upon the opposite parties (three brothers). So, the learned Court directed the applicant petitioner Harbhajan Singh to take steps by both ways up till 12.10.2001. Even before the date so mentioned by the Trial Court for taking the steps, the Written Statement, bearing the signatures of all the three brothers, was filed by them through an Advocate Mr. Harpal Gandhi. In the Written Statement, they admitted the genuineness of execution of the Will and expressed their no concern for granting the Probate to the applicant Harbhajan Singh.

(2.) LEARNED Court acting on the averments of all the three brothers issued the Probate accordingly on 28.7.2003.

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel of the appellants that, in fact, they could never know the issuance of such a Probate and even execution of such a Will by their late father Amarnath Singh and by showing the fake address of all the brothers through their landlords, service was shown sufficient. So, they remained in quite dark and could never know the mischief played by their own brother Harbhajan Singh in order to grab the property left by father of all the parties. They quickly moved to the Court of the District Judge, Haridwar by way of filing the Miscellaneous Case No. 199/2012 for setting aside the judgment of granting the Probate. Although no limitation has been provided under Section 263 and 264 of the Indian Succession Act, even so by way of abundant caution they moved the delay condonation application. Application of the appellants was rejected by the District Judge vide impugned order dated 3.7.2013 simply saying that the Probate was granted on the basis of the averments submitted by all the rest of the brothers with their signatures. So, this application for revocation of the Probate cannot be entertained belatedly inasmuch as after ten years.