VIJAY SHARMA Vs. L.H.M.GREGORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act read with Order 43, C.P.C., appellants Ms. Vijay Sharma alias Vijay and Padam Chand Joshi, have challenged the order dated 14 -1 -1994 of learned Single Judge whereby in Probate Case No. 1 of 1986, Letters of Administration, with the Will annexed thereto, has been issued in favour of respondent No. 1 Lt. Col. L.H.M. Gregory, through his attorney Shri Kamaljit Singh Grewal. Appellants were not party to the probate proceedings in which the aforesaid Letters of Administration has been granted. Their contention is that they are the legal representatives of one of the respondents in the Probate Case, namely, Ms. Doris Isolene Heysham, who died during the pendency of the said probate case, but the petitioner took no steps to bring them on record, inspire of the fact that the said deceased respondent executed a registered Will in their (appellants) favour on 14 -10 -1993.

(2.) FIRST the facts which have led to the filing of this appeal may be noticed. There lived a lady by the name of Enid Alice Lisbey at Shimla. She had a house and some vacant site attached to that house in Shimla Town. She did not have any issue. She died on 17 -10 -1980. After her death, respondent Lt. Col. L.H.M. Gregory, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, filed a petition through his general attorney Shri Kamaljit Singh Grewal, under Section 241 of the Indian Succession Act, for grant of Letters of Administration, claiming that Ms. Lisbey had executed a Will in his favour on 22 - 6 -1978. Three ladies named Ms. Irene Heysham, Ms. Doris Heysham and Smt. Sundri Devi, besides General Public, were impleaded as respondents. Ms. Irene Heysham and Ms. Doris Heysham denied the execution of Will by Ms. Libsey in favour of the petitioner and instead, set up a Will purporting to have been executed by Ms. Libsey in their favour some time in the year 1974. They also claimed that they were the legal heirs of deceased Ms. Lisbey. Smt. Sundri Devi claimed that a Will had been executed in respect of a portion of the property, consisting of out houses of the main building, on 5th October, 1980 in her favour.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as also the learned Counsel representing the respondent -petitioner and gone through the evidence.