BEHARI LAL RAM CHARAN Vs. KARAM CHAND SAHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit brought by Mrs. Roshan Lal plaintiff No. 2 and others for recovery of Rs. 88,151 against the defendants, she alleged herself to be the widow of Roshan Lal and propounded a will of the deceased claiming that the deceased had bequeathed his estate to her entitling her to the above-mentioned amount. One of the pleas taken by defendant No. 1 was that the suit was not competent as no probate or letters of administration of the said will had been taken The trial Court, after hearing the parties decided this objection against this defendant and in favour of Mrs Roshan Lal vide its order dated 4th June, 1965 Defendant No. 1 felt aggrieved and approached this Court with the instant revision petition It came up before Grover J who after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the sole point in this petition was whether in a suit instituted in Delhi it was necessary to obtain probate of a will before any claim could be based on that will. After referring to various authorities, mentioned in his order the learned Judge felt that the point involved was not free from difficulty and therefore, referred this revision petition to a larger bench for decision vide his order dated 27th January 1966. That is how this petition has come up before us.

(2.) It would be helpful to reproduce the provisions of Sections 213 and 57 of the Indian Succession Act which are to be read together.

(3.) Agreeing with the view of Falshaw J., we hold that in a suit instituted in Delhi it is not necessary to obtain probate of a will before any claim could be based on that will. This petition is, consequently, dismissed with no order as to costs