KALAVATI SNATAK MAHAVIDYALAY RANIGANJ Vs. DEV NARAYAN PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are intervenors, who had filed an intervention petition in Succession Certificate Case No. 9 of 1998, which was filed by the two opposite parties, who are daughters of the deceased Kalawati Devi for grant of succession certificate with respect to three fixed deposits and one savings bank account of late Katawati Devi in Allahabad Bank.

(2.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by order dated 2.7.2004 passed in the aforesaid case, by which the learned 1st Subordinate Judge, Araria rejected their intervention petition on the ground that since the will claimed by the intervenors was not probated, neither it can be taken into evidence, norany order can be passed on its basis.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that according to Annexure -1 series, statements of the bank, it is quite apparent that the first two authorities issued by Kalawati Devi were dated 6.11.1986, whereas the first two deposits were made much later on 19.4.1988 and third fixed deposit was made on 7.11.1988 and the authority was also of the same date. Hence he submits that the said authorities were clearly frivolous as they were much prior to the deposits made and also that if the authorities were already there, there was no occasion for the alleged will executed by Kalawati Devi on 8.11.1988, which, according to him, was a forged document as would be clear from comparison of the signatures of Kalawati Devi on the said Will as well as on the statements of the bank. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further submits that forged and fraudulent nature of the claim was writ large on the materials on record and hence there was clear suspicion about the Will and it was not even fit for being legally probated. In support of his contention he relies upon a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Singh V/s. Smt. Chhoti and others reported in (1990)1 Supreme Court Cases 266. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further submits that if there are several claimants, then the court has to find out the extent of their interest and grant succession certificate to one person, who may be directed to file security to safeguard the interest of other claimants. In this connection he relies upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Ganga Devi and others V/s. Smt. Munia reported in A.I.R. 1966 Allahabad 107. Learned counsel for the opposite parties also submits that the deceased Kalawati Devi died in the year 1988 and for so many years the intervenors did not file any case for probate of the Will and have filed a frivolous petition in the instant case, although their entire claim is based on falsehood. Hence, he submits that the impugned order is legal, proper and justified.