(1.) BY this Chamber Summons, applicant seeks his impleadment as Respondent No. 2 to the Misc. Petition No. 87 of 2011 on the ground that the deceased had bequeathed the property known as Gurdasmal Mansion situated at National Library Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 in equal shares to the applicant along with the 1st Respondent.
(2.) MR . Kapadia, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that if probate granted by this Court in respect of the last Will of the deceased is revoked, applicant who is one of the beneficiary under the said Will, would be seriously affected and is thus necessary and proper party to the revocation petition filed by the petitioner and should be impleaded. The learned Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar Singh and others, reported in 1969 Mh LJ 527 and in particular paragraph (3) thereof which reads thus: -
(3.) MR . Kanade, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner on the other hand invited my attention to section 263 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and would submit that letter of administration has been granted by this court in favour of the executor which order is sought to be revoked by Section 263 of the Act on various grounds available under the said provisions. It is submitted that applicant is neither necessary party nor proper party in revocation petition in view of limited scope of enquiry in this proceedings as to whether petitioner has proved just cause as per the explanation to Section 263 or not. It is submitted that the respondent who claims to be executor and had obtained letter of administration would represent all the beneficiaries including the applicant. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Nalini Navin Bhagwati (MRS) and others v. Chandravadan M. Mehta, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 689 : (AIR 1997 SC 1055) and in particular paragraph 7 thereof which reads as under : -