VISHAVJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 300 of 1986, filed by Vishavjit Singh, adopted son of late Kanwarni Surjit Kaur against the order of learned Single Judge dated 6.3.1986 passed in Probate Case No. 4 of 1979, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petition of the State of Punjab and granted letters of administration to the State of Punjab regarding the property of Smt. Parbati Kaur, widow of late Arjan Singh of Kapurthala, on the basis of Will dated 21.7.1956, executed by Smt. Parbati Kaur. The undisputed facts of the case as extracted from the order of learned Single Judge are that Smt. Parbati Kaur widow of late Arjan Singh of Kapurthala executed a Will dated 21.7.1956 at Indore, bequeathing all her property for the benefit of general public in favour of Randhir Jagatjit Hospital, Kapurthala, a Government Hospital, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Hospital') and appointed Jagan Nath Paul of Jalandhar as sole executor of the Will. She died at Indore on 15.8.1956. Jagan Nath Paul refused to act as executor on account of his age. Consequently, a petition has been filed by the State through the Chief Medical Officer, Kapurthala for grant of Letters of Administration on the basis of the Will.

(2.) The petition has been contested by Vishavjit Singh (respondent No. 1) Sehdev Singh (respondent No. 2) and Atam Dev (respondent No. 3). Vishavjit Singh, in his written statement, pleaded that Smt. Parbati Kaur did not execute any Will in favour of the Hospital as alleged. She was not of sound and disposing mind on the date when the Will was alleged to have been executed by her. The Will is also invalid as she was limited owner of the property and could not dispose it of by a Will. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to get Letters of Administration. Respondents No. 2 and 3 pleaded that the petition has been filed by an unauthorised person on behalf of the State, that the petitioner has no right to file a petition for Letters of Administration in the presence of the executor named in the Will, that the petition is not properly verified and that the petition is bad for misjoinder of parties as respondent No. 1 has no right or interest in the property. It is further pleaded that the petition is not within limitation and that it is not maintainable as they are in possession of the property of the deceased. They also pleaded that the deceased did not execute any valid Will.

(3.) The learned Single Judge decided issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioner holding that petition has been filed by an authorized person. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of State of Punjab and so was issue No. 3. Issues No. 4, 5 and 7 were not pressed and were decided against the respondents, whereas issue No. 6 was decided in favour of State of Punjab. Consequently, the petition was allowed, as stated above.