RAJENDRA KUMARI Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dt. 6.5.2013 passed by the District and Session Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Probate Petition No. 751 of 2001, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner -applicant under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking permission to implead her as the party defendant in the said proceedings. In the instant case, it appears that one Shri Berisal Singhji had two sons, named, Janat Singh and Daljeet Singh and one daughter, named, Rajendra Kumari i.e. the present petitioner. The said Janat Singh had three sons, named, Indrajit Singh (the respondent No. 3), Ranjit Singh (the respondent No. 4) and Servedaman Singh (the respondent No. 5). It further appears that Smt. Top Kanwar, wife of said Janat Singh had allegedly executed a Will dt. 04.08.1994 in favour of the respondent No. 2 -Urmila Kanwar, wife of the respondent No. 4 Ranjit Singh, for which the respondent No. 2 has filed the application for obtaining the probate of the said Will before the Trial Court. The said application has been resisted by the present respondent No. 3 -Indrajit Singh and respondent No. 5 -Servedaman Singh, alleging that the said Smt. Top Kanwar had executed another Will on 03.02.1995 in their favour. Pending the said proceedings, the present petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC for impleading her as the party defendant in the said probate proceedings. The said application has been dismissed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order.

(2.) THE learned counsel Mr. Sudesh Bansal appearing for the petitioner relying on the provisions contained in Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 submitted that the property in question originally belonged to late Shri Berisal Singhji. He submitted that the petitioner, being the daughter of late Shri Berisal Singhji, had interest in the estate of said Shri Berisal Singhji, and that she was a necessary party to the probate proceedings. Mr. Bansal has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of G. Gopal v. C. Baskar & Ors., : (2008) 10 SCC 489 to submit that the petitioner having caveat -able interest to challenge the grant of probate of the Will of the testator, she should be impleaded as party defendant in the probate proceedings.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, it appears that in the probate proceedings, which has been converted into suit by the Trial Court, the issue involved is as to whether the respondent No. 2 -Urmila Kanwar is entitled to obtain the probate of the Will dt. 4.8.1994 allegedly executed by the late Smt. Top Kanwar in her favour or not. The Trial Court, as such, is not required to decide whether the present petitioner has any right or interest in the suit property in respect of which the Will has been allegedly executed by Smt. Top Kanwar. The proceedings being the proceedings under the Indian Succession Act and not the suit pertaining to the title of the property, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner for impleading her as party defendant in the said proceedings. Even otherwise, it is not disputed that the petitioner has already filed the separate suit before the Revenue Court claiming her right in the property in question. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.