RATNESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 6/7/2019 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi in L.A. Case No. 3 of 2017 / Probate Case No. 138 of 2014 whereby the intervention application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. 2 &

(3.) filed an application for grant of Letters of Administration on the basis of Will dtd. 3/9/2006 whereby Jyoti Lal Bhattacharjee bequeathed his share of land measuring an area of 04 Kathas with old house having an area of 500 sq. ft. appertaining to Khata No. 124, R.S. Plot No. 299 of the society part, Plot No. 101/A Part (corresponding to Co-operative Society Holding No. 1552/D-93), Ward No. 10 (old), 28 (new), situated at old A.G Co-operative Colony, Kadru, P.S-Argora, District-Ranchi under Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It is further submitted that the said property was jointly purchased by Jyoti Lal Bhattacharjee and Sujan Kumar Bhattacharya out of their joint funds by virtue of registered sale deed dtd. 4/3/2006 from the previous owner. Sujan Kumar Bhattacharya being the owner of 1/2 share, sold the plot measuring an area of 2 Kathas towards northern side with house area of 250 sq. ft., to the petitioner by virtue of registered sale deed dtd. 19/4/2012 and he came in possession of the same. It is further submitted that when the petitioner came to know about filing of Probate Case No. 138 of 2014 by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, he filed an intervention application under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC with a prayer to implead him as an opposite party in the said probate case. However, the learned Court below vide the impugned order dtd. 6/7/2019, dismissed the said application. It is further submitted that a general notice ought to have been published for the public providing them an opportunity to raise objections against grant of probate. However, no such procedure was followed and without considering the material facts, the learned Court below dismissed the said application which is quite illegal and against the provisions of law of probate. Hence, on this score alone, the impugned order dtd. 6/7/2019 is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that as per rule, one can apply for grant of probate after seven days of the death of the testator (or the person who makes the Will and is the owner of the property to be distributed). However, the said probate case was filed after a delay of about thirteen months as the testator died on 13/11/2013 and the petition for grant of probate was filed on 18/12/2014. It is further submitted that several irregularities were committed in filing the said probate case, however, the learned Court below is adamant to grant the Letters of Administration in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 3. Per-contra, Ms. Pinky Tewary, learned AC to AG appearing on behalf of the State-respondent, opposes the said contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that learned Court below has dismissed the intervention application filed by the petitioner specifically mentioning the questions which he wanted to be decided by the Probate Court, however, the same are beyond the jurisdiction of the Probate Court. It is well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of the Probate Court is limited only to consider the genuineness of the Will.