DARSHAN SINGH Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Jullundur, dated February 20, 1979.

(2.) KULDIP Singh plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner of the property in dispute as a sole heir of Ram Kishan Singh, his father, and the mutation No. 2447 sanctioned on May 16, 1975, in the name of the defendant on the basis of an alleged will by his father is illegal, null, void and inoperative against him. The case of the plaintiff is that after the death of his father Ram Kishan Singh, he became owner of the property in dispute, being his legal heir. He averred that the defendant got the mutation sanctioned on May 16, 1975 on the basis of will dated September 11, 1973, alleged to have been executed by Ram Kishan Singh in his favour. The defendant inter alia pleaded that Ram Kishan Singh executed a valid will in his favour and he obtained letters of administration from the High Court of Justice at Birmingham on the basis of that will on Aug. 9, 1977 (?) which operated as res judicata between the parties. One of the issues framed by the Court was as follows:-''whether the order dated August 9, 1977 passed by the High Court of Justice at Birmingham operates as res judicata between the parties?'' The said issue was treated as a preliminary issue. The Court held that the order of the High Court at Birmingham does not operate as res judicata and consequently decided the issue against the defendant. He has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of a Probate Court is a judgment in rem and is binding on the whole world, in addition to the parties. According to the counsel, the letters of administration were applied for by the petitioner on the basis of the will and the Court pronounced that the will had been properly executed. He argues that the plaintiff cannot challenge it in a suit and say that the will had not properly executed. It is also submitted by him that if he wants to challenge the execution of the will, he can do so before the High Court of Justice at Birmingham.