SURENDRA BHATIA Vs. POONAM BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sudershan Bhatia, born and brought up in the State of Rajasthan, but stated to be a Canadian citizen, died on 21/4/1989 in Germany leaving behind considerable movable and immovable properties. Poonam Bhatia his wife and Smita Bhatia, minor daughter, said to have been born out of the wedlock of Sudershan Bhatia and Poonam Bhatia, successfully sought succession certificate with regard to the movable properties of deceased Sudershan Bhatia, details whereof have been given in the application u/S. 372 of the Indian Succession Act itself as the same was allowed vide orders dated 6/12/1999 passed by tshe District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Whereas Surendra Bhatia brother of Sudershan Bhatia resisted grant of succession certificate to Poonam Bhatia and her daughter Smita on the basis of Will dated 17/4/1989 (Ex.A. 1) said to have been executed by Sudershan Bhatia, his sister resisted the same on the ground that movable properties owned by Sudershan Bhatia were made from Immovable properties owned by her father, and the said movable properties thus being ancestral, she had a share in the same. The two broad defences projected by Surendra Bhatia and his sister, not only fizzled out before the learned single Judge but the same also cut no ice in the appeals preferred by them as the same came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge vide orders dated 26-4-2001. It is against these two orders dated 6-12-1999 and 26-4-2001 that the present appeal u/S. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed.

(2.) Whereas Mr. A. K. Bhandari, representing Surendra Bhatia (appellant in Appeal No. 104/2001) has primarily challenged the impugned judgments by reiterating the contentions raised before the learned Dist. Judge and the single Judge with regard to the validity of the Will dated 17/4/1989 (ExA.1), Mrs. Naina Saraf was at pains to explain that the property, subject-matter of succession certificate, was ancestral property and she being a coparcener, would succeed to 1/4th of even of the movable properties owned by Sudershan Bhatia and in the manner aforesaid even if no effect is to be given to the Will, she would be a natural successor to the estate of Sudershan Bhatia, be it movable or immovable properties.

(3.) Mr. R. P. Garg, per contra, appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently contends that not only the Will propounded by Surendra Bhatia is an outright act of concoction and forgery, Swarn Anand has absolutely no right whatsoever to succeed to the estate of her brother, and also contends that the due of appellant brother and sister has embroilled the respondents in unsavoury, unethical and frivolous litigation spread over a period of sixteen years on made up and trumped up pleadings and evidence. The questions as posed by learned, counsel appearing for the parties, as men" tloned above, necessarily need a mention of the relevant facts which reveal that Poonam Bhatia widow of Sudershan Bhatia in her application that was filed u/S. 372 of the Indian Succession Act inter alia pleaded that Sudershan Bhatia, her husband, had properties at Jaipur and Delhi. He died on 21-4-1989 in Germany. She along with her daughter was the sole heir to claim estate of the deceased. This application was resisted by the appellant who as mentioned above, are brother and sister of deceased Sudershan Bhatia. Surendra Bhatia propounded a Will dated 17/4/1989 (Ex.A.1) said to have been executed by his brother Sudershan Bhatia. He further stated that relations between his deceased brother and Poonam Bhatia were strained and he never wanted to give any property to her. The Will propounded by Surendra Bhatia, it was claimed, was executed by the deceased Sudershan Bhatia in a hospital at Frankfurt in Germany.