PURUSHOTTAM DASS BANGUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The propounders seeking grant of probate of the Will of Purushottam Dass Bangur, since deceased has applied for the caveat of the son of the deceased given in adoption, namely, Lakshmi Niwas Bangur (hereinafter referred to as the 'caveator') to be discharged and probate of the Will of the deceased to be granted.

(2.) Mr. S.K. Kapoor, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, consequent to the caveator being given in adoption, he had ceased to have any right in the natural family in view of the provisions of Sec. 12(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In support of the proposition that, with the adoption, the adoptee cannot have any vested right in the undivided Hindu family of his natural birth Mr. Kapoor has relied upon All India Reporter 1987 Supreme Court page 398 (Vasant & Anr. Vs. Dattu & Ors.), All India Reporter 1992 Bombay page 189 (Devgonda Raygonda Patil Vs. Shamgonda Raygonda Patil & Anr.) and All India Reporter Patna page 125 (Santosh Kumar Jalan Vs. Chandra Kishore Jalan & Anr.). He has submitted that, the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported at All India Reporter 1981 Andhra Pradesh page 19 (Yarlagadda Nayudamma Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.) is not correct. Such view has been dissented from by the High Courts of Patna and Bombay. Mr. Kapoor has emphasized the difference between a joint Hindu family continuing in jointness with the properties available to the family and a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law having such properties partitioned amongst themselves. In this regard he has relied upon 1988 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases page 126 (Dharma Shamrao Agalawe Vs. Pandurang Miragu Agalawe & Ors.) and All India Reporter 1935 Calcutta page 131 (Dhanabati Bibi Vs. Protapmull Agarwalla & Ors.).

(3.) Mr. S.P. Sarkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the caveator has submitted that, the caveator is a natural son of the testator. The petition for grant of probate has shown the caveator as a natural heir. By an Order dated Jan. 5, 2012 a special citation was directed to be issued to the caveator as the caveator was not cited initially. Although the caveator was given in adoption in 1970 yet the caveator has the locus standi to question grant of probate of a Will of the testator. In the affidavit in support of the caveat the caveator has disclosed various grounds on which the probate ought not to be granted. A probate Court being a Court of conscience such Court had allowed third parties to apply for revocation of probate already granted.