LAWS(P&H)-2013-12-345

HARINDER PAL Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC AND ANOTHER

Decided On December 16, 2013
HARINDER PAL Appellant
V/S
General Public and Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the grant of probate issued in favour of the appellant to apply. The contest was entered by the brother of the appellant. I will refer to the appellant as the sister and the respondent as the brother for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The probate proceedings was in relation to an estate that the original belonged to the father Ram Richpal, who was alleged to have executed a Will in favour of his wife on 14.07.1971 granting a life interest in respect of land and his other immovable property and an absolute interest in favour of his wife in respect of money and movable property. The property which was referred an immovable property at his death did not exist and it bears out in evidence that the property had been acquired by the Government even during the life time of his father and it was converted to money and award was passed on 16.04.1974, the money appears to have come subsequent to his death. The award passed by the Collector appears to have been issued subject a reference to a Civil Court and an award was passed on 24.10.1981. Considering the fact that the property had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and Collector had passed an order even in the year 1979 it means that the property went out of the hands of the father and stood converted in terms of money during his life time and what came through the award on 24.10.1981 was an enhancement of the award already passed. Consequently, I would take it that what was available at his death was money and not immovable property and the widow became absolute owner in terms of the Will. This finding regarding what stood transferred at the time of his death become relevant in view of the fact that wife herself had executed her Will bequeathing all her monies which included the compensation amount for the acquisition in favour of her daughter Savitri Devi. The Court below upheld the Will propounded by the sister and a letter of administration was issued although euphemistically referred to as probate in the order passed by the Court below.

(3.) In the appeal by the brother, the challenge is twofold that the widow did not have a right to execute a Will since the right in the immovable property was restricted by the terms of the Will and the compensation being an amount out of immovable property must also be treated as immovable property. The other objection was that the Will was not properly proved and the lower Court failed to note that the brother was totally disinherited which was most artificial.