GEVRA DEVI Vs. GOVERDHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5/1/2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge, No.3, Bikaner, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

(2.) A suit was filed by the respondent no.1 seeking administration of estate of deceased Hansa Ram in terms of his Will dated 9/2/1979. The suit was filed on 21/8/2015 valuing the same at Rs.25,00,400/- and paying the court fees of Rs. 310/-. It was inter alia indicated in the suit that the plaintiff was grandson of deceased Hansa Ram being son of Ram Lal and defendants were son, daughters, grand children, being children of deceased Ram Lal, and daughter-in-law and son of one deceased grandson Rajendra along with four defendants, who were partners in business with Hansa Ram. The estate of the deceased was indicated in the schedule annexed with the plaint. By Will dated 9/2/1979, on account of family circumstances Hansa Ram executed his last Will favouring the plaintiff, wherein, the plaintiff was made the sole legatee. It was claimed that though Hansa Ram died on 19/4/1979, however, as the plaintiff was minor, he was unaware of anything. The Will was with Smt. Dhapu Devi w/o deceased Hansa Ram, who also did not disclose the Will and the business etc. continued. It was indicated that Ram Lal - father of the plaintiff died on 5/1/1983, still the grand mother of the plaintiff did not disclose anything about the Will and the business in joint status continued with defendant no.1 being in-charge, who continued to operate the business as per his will. It was claimed that by the end of 2004/beginning of 2005 when Dhapu Devi became aware of attempts on the part of defendants to usurp the estate, she disclosed the Will of Hansa Ram to the plaintiff and handed over the same to him with instructions not to disclose the same during her life time.

(3.) Submissions were made that the defendant no.1 became aware of the Will and prepared forged documents pressuring other members of the family by getting their signatures on blank papers and started defalcating money from the business. Based on the said submissions, it was claimed that the plaintiff was entitled to get the properties of the estate ascertained and their administration in terms of the Will for which the suit was being filed.