VIJAY KUMAR RAMAWAT Vs. SHANTI LAL GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful applicant, aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.91 and subsequent order dated 20.03.91, rendered by VIII Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in Civil Misc. Case No. 47/90 thereby allowing two applications one dated 4.3.91 of Respondent No. 2 to 6 and the other dated 20.03.91 of Respondent No. 2 and rejecting his application dated 30.03.90, moved under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short Act) seeking revocation of Certificate granted in Case No. 44/89 on 13.12.89 in favour of Chandanlal Bandi, has filed this appeal under section 384 of the Act.

(2.) Facts are in narrow compass. The appellant, respondent No. 1 and deceased Kesharimal Bandi jointly held fixed deposit receipts in Central Bank of India. The money covered by these receipts was made payable to the survivor. Late Kesharimal had also Saving Bank Account in Central Bank and a locker in Cloth Market Branch of State Bank of lndore. He expired on 3.4.89 at Indore. His brother, Chandanlal Bandi applied for grant of Certificate and secured it on 13.12.89 in Case No. 44/89, on strength of order dated 6.12.89. Chandanlal Bandi expired on 12.3.90. Kesharimal along with his wife, had executed joint will on 22.3.85. Appellant held that the Certificate dated 13.12.89 was illegal and invalid and deserved to be revoked, as being obtained by suppression of the existence of will which had stood probated on 10.12.90 by High Court of Bombay in Probate Case No. 225/90. Appellant thus, filed application for revocation of certificate. The respondents No. 2 to 6 opposed this application as untenable. The Succession Court upheld the objection and rejected the application on 19.3.91. Respondents No. 2 to 6 thereafter, filed another application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code which was allowed on 20.03.91 without notice to the appellant. These orders of 19.3.91 and 20.3.91 are challenged.

(3.) We have heard Shri G. M. Chaphekar, Senior Counsel who appeared with Shri Subhash Samvatsar for the appellant and Shri S.N. Saxena, counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 6. None appeared for Respondent No. 1.