RAMIBAI Vs. RAMKUMARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by the legal representatives of the objector Surjuprasad against the order dated 4-11-87 passed in probate Case No. 1/87 by the District Judge, Indore whereby the learned District Judge has granted time to the non-applicant Ramkumaribai to bring the legal representatives of deceased objector Surjuprasad on record without deciding the question of abatement.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this revision, briefly stated, are as follows :- The non-applicant Ramkumaribai alleging a will dated 1-12-68 executed in her favour by the father of the objector Surjuprasad, applied for probate (Probate Case No.6/70) in the court of Additional District Judge, Indore without impleading Surjuprasad as a party-non-applicant and obtained probate of the said will. When the non-applicant Ramkumaribai filed Civil Suit No. 41/70 for possession of the property on the basis of the probate, obtained as aforesaid, Surjuprasad came to have knowledge about the earlier probate proceedings in the Case No.6/70 which culminated in the grant of probate in favour of Ramkumaribai. Surjuprasad then filed an application dated 15-3-1971 for revocation of the said probate. After inquiry, the application for revocation was allowed on 25-10-72 and the probate in favour of Ramkumaribai was set aside in the probate case No.6/70, on the finding that the citation was not issued to Surjuprasad, son of the deceased. It was also held in the order dated 25-10-72 that the execution of the will by the deceased Ramawatar was not proved and that the deceased Ramawatar was not in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the will. Being aggrieved by the order of revocation of the will, the respondent Ramkumaribai field a Miscellaneous Appeal (No.10/73) in this Court. This Court while maintaining the order of revocation of probate in absence of issuance of citation to Surjuprasad, son of the deceased, set aside the further conclusions reached by the learned Addl. District Judge and directed that the court below shall consider afresh after giving opportunity to the parties about the will in presence of both the parties.

(3.) After remand of the case, to the learned Lower Court,, the objector Surjuprasad adduced his evidence by examining himself and his witnesses Mangilal and Ramnath. Thereafter, on 9-5-87, Surjuprasad died and the fact of his death was intimated by his counsel to the Court on 24-6-87 and the Court directed the respondent-applicant Ramkumaribai to take legal steps. within time. Thereafter, time was sought by the respondent-applicant on three occasions for bringing the legal representatives of Surjuprasad on record and then on 5-10-87, the respondent-applicant sought further time on the ground that she could not gather information about the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad. Time was further sought and granted on 2-11-87 up to 4-11-87. On 4-11-87, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the deceased Surjuprasad that the respondent-applicant's application for grant of probate had abated since the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad, son of the testator had not been brought on record within time. But the learned lower Court granted fifteen days time to the respondent-applicant for brining the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad on record. On 20-11-87, an application under O.22 R.4 of the Civil P.C. was submitted by the respondent-applicant and notices were directed to be issued to the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad on 23-11-87. Being aggrieved by the order dated 4-11-87 the petitioners who are legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad being his widow and daughter have filed this revision.