KISHAN SINGH AHLUWALIA Vs. SHEELA SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter in this Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the Probate proceedings numbered as Probate Case No. 71/87, whereunder, respondent Smt. Sheela Saxena had filed an application dated 14-2-1987. Under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act praying for issue of letter of Administration annexed with the Will dated 4-6-1987, claimed to have been executed by Smt. Rajendra Kaur alias Harisharan aged about 85 years in her favour and in favour of Naveen Kumar, her son as well as Balbir Baba, her sister, Smt. Rajendra Kaur, the testatrix had died on 25-6-1987.

(2.) The learned trial Court by order dated 25-6-90 allowed the application and granted letter of Administration in favour of Smt. Sheela Saxena. However, in Misce. Appeal No. 102/90, preferred by another daughter of testatrix Shakuntala Jhamb, the order Dt. 25-9-96, was set aside with the direction of remanding the matter back to the Court below providing however, that before rehearing the matter, other heirs of Rajinder Kaur who are indicated hereinabove, shall be noticed and they shall also be heard. When objections are filed afresh, if any, on that and also on objections already on record, the Probate Court shall frame points of determination and proceed to try the application for Probate on the basis of point settled for determination. Evidence on record shall be read but other evidence, if so advised may be led by parties and that too shall also be read in disposing of afresh the matter. It was further directed while allowing the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, that documents detailed in the application shall also form part of the record of the trial Court.

(3.) Present appellant had also moved a Misce. Appeal No. 101/92, against order dt. 30-3-92 of the trial Court wherein, it was contended that he was not allowed reasonable opportunity to prove his case. This Court therefore, by order dt. 11-9-92, made it clear that the respondent/objector Shakuntala Jhamb can cross-examination afresh Smt. Sheela Saxena if she had not been cross-examined for the second time after passing of remand order. From the orders passed in C. R. No. 41/92 and M. A. No. 33/92, also it transpires that the objectors were allowed to cross-examine and further to adduce evidence on their behalf.