MURLIDHAR DEONATH SAMEL Vs. SADASHIV DEONATH SAMEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is for revocation of the probate granted on 19th May, 1981. This concerns the estate of Satyabambai Deonath Samel. She had made a Will on 23rd April, 1971. She died on 10th May, 1975. On 18th June, 1977 her son (Sadashiv) filed Petition No. 623 of 1977 for obtaining probate. On 19th May, 1981 the probate was granted. Thereafter the present petition has been filed for the relief as stated above.

(2.) THE present petitioner claims to be an heir of the deceased (Satyabambai) and on that basis he claims that citations should have been issued to him and that he had a right to challenge the Will. The present petitioner is a step-son of the said Satyamabai. In section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 he would come under Item (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15. However, he would be excluded by the sons of Satyamabai falling under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the said Act. Since Satyamabai left the sons including Sadashiv, the petitioner in Petition No. 623 of 1977, the present petitioner cannot be said to be an heir of Satyamabai. The question whether a step-son falls within the meaning of son within Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the said Act has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of (Lachman Singh v. Kirpa Singh) A. I. R. 1986 S. C. 1616. The Supreme Court has held that a step-son of a female dying intestate is not entitled to claim share in the property simultaneously with her son as the word "sons" does not include "step-sons". Hence, I hold that the petitioner has no locus standi to take out the present petition.

(3.) HENCE, Miscellaneous Petition No. 39 of 1982 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.