BASUNDHARA DEVI ALIAS BASUNDHARE Vs. HARE RAM TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Basundhara Devi has filed this First Appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.6.2003 passed by Sri A.P. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Siwan in Misc. Case No. 37 of 1984/3 of 2002 dismissing the case filed by the appellant under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.

(2.) The original petitioner Sughara Devi along with the appellant Basundhara Devi filed the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 37 of 1984 for revocation of the probate granted on 17.7.1984 in Probate Case No. 11 of 1977 in favor of the opposite parties-respondents. During the pendency of the said misc. case Sughara Devi died. Basundhara Devi, the appellant is the daughter of Sughara Devi through Ramagya Tiwari. The application under Sec. 263 of the Indian Succession Act was filed alleging that Ramhit Tiwari had two sons namely, Rajendra Tiwari and Dalthaman Tiwari. Dalthaman Tiwari had two sons namely, Ramagya Tiwari and Jhoolan Tiwari. Ramagya Tiwari predeceased his father leaving behind two widows namely, Dularo Devi and Sughara Devi and a daughter through SugharaDevi namely, BasundharaDevi who is the appellant. Jhoolan Tiwari had three sons who are the respondent namely (1) Hare Ram Tiwari, (2) Bali Ram Tiwari and (3) Birendra Tiwari. The appellant was married with Bikrama Tiwari. Dalthaman Tiwari died in the year 1969, therefore, the daughter and the widow i.e. appellant and her mother have got direct title and interest in the property of Dalthaman Tiwari but the respondents filed Probate Case No. 11 of 1977 for grant of probate of the will said to have been executed by Dalthaman Tiwari in favor of the opposite party-respondent on 17.3.1969 without citing the name of the appellant and her mother in the said probate case. Since the appellant had direct interest in the property, they were entitled for the citation and, therefore, the grant of probate is liable to be revoked or annulled.

(3.) It appears that the records of the Probate Case No. 11 of 1977 as well as the record of Misc. Case No. 3,7 of 1984 were burnt and, therefore, the records were reconstructed with the consent of the parties. The parties filed the typed copy/certified copy/photocopy of the applications, orders and depositions and other relevant documents.