GITA BHATTACHARYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 28.09.2012 this Court heard Sri Yadav appearing in support of I.A. No.5575 of 2010, filed on 30.6.2011 by one Smt. Neha under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure and section 383(1)(c) of the Indian Successions Act, filed with a prayer to intervene in the matter. Claim of the petitioner of this I.A. is that she is a bonafide purchaser of the part of portion of the property covered under the Will. It is stated in the I.A. that her husband Ramesh Kumar had been granted power of attorney on 1.10.2009 by Near Relative No.3 Arunab Bhattacharya @ Shibomoy in respect of the property under the Will. Thereafter, Ramesh Kumar executed sale deed in her favour. It is stated in the I.A. that the applicant of the Test Case has filed title suit bearing T.S.No.659 of 2009 in the court of learned Sub-Judge-1, Muzaffarpur and the petitioner has appeared in the said suit. Thereafter she came to know about the Test case and hence she has filed this I.A. for being impleaded as party in the case in order to contest the claim of the applicant. She claims that she is bonafide purchaser of a part of the property under the Will and as such she has a right to appear in this case and contest the validity and genuineness of the will. In support of his submissions, Mr. Yadav has placed reliance on the judgments reported in THOMAS P JACOB V. M G VARGHESE, 1987 AIR(Ker) 193; IN RE: BEGUM SHANTI TUFAIL AHMAD KHAN AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF PROBATE OF THE PROPERTY AND CREDIT OF EXECUTOR; IN RE: JALAUDDIN S/O BADRUDDIN, 2006 AIR(All) 75; THRITY SAM SHROFF v. SHIRAZ BYRAMJI ANKLESARIA; ASPI BYRAMJI ANKLESARIA, 2007 AIR(Bom) 103 and KUNVARJEET SINGH v. KIRANDEEP KAUR, 2008 AIR(SC) 2058. He further referred to Section 293 of the Limitation Act and submitted that submitted that the main application of the applicant for grant of Letters of Administration was barred by limitation. He also referred to a supplementary affidavit filed earlier in respect of a defect pointed out by the office and also filed written arguments.

(2.) Applicant has filed objection/counter affidavit to the said I.A., stating that the I.A. by a stranger for being impleaded as party in a Test Case is not maintainable. It is stated that there is no provision in the Indian Succession Act to entertain such an application of a stranger to the family not claiming any interest under the will. In support of his submissions learned counsel placed reliance on judgments reported in and KRISHNA KUMAR BIRLA v. RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA, 2008 4 SCC 300.

(3.) The intervener has not filed any caveat or objection in this Test case in terms of section 284 of Indian Succession Act read with Rule 17 of Chapter XI of the Patna High Court Rules. Rule 17 reads as follows:-