MEENA DEVI Vs. GITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the order dtd. 4/9/2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribag in Probate Case No.02/2022, whereby, he has been pleased to allow the application filed by the interveners/opposite party nos. 2 to 4 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Sec. 151 of the CPC for adding them party to the said probate case.

(3.) Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has instituted an application for grant of probate certificate under Sec. 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the properties which were received by her from Matishwari Devi, wife of late Vidha Singh, who executed a will on 17/12/2017 for the properties which were acquired by her in terms of registered deed of sale no.315 of 1946 from Nandkeshwari Kumari, wife of Ayodhya Singh. He submits that the testator remained in absolute ownership and exclusive possession throughout her life over the properties. The testatrix has not executed any other will in favour of any other person in respect of the properties which were subject matter of the said probate case. The properties which were subject matter of the said probate case is situated in Khata no.07 of Mouza- Tandih, Pargana Chaiy, Thana- Chouparan, Thana no.131. He further submits that the testatrix Matishwari Devi was aunt-in-law of the petitioner and the petitioner had taken care of her every requirement with full devotion and due to that on being satisfied with her behaviour, the testatrix executed the said will in favour of the petitioner. According to him, the testatrix has no child and she had only a step daughter, namely, Gita Devi, who is opposite party no.1 in the present C.M.P. as well as in the said probate case and she has supported the case of the petitioner. He then submits that opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are strangers and they have got no relationship with the said property and in spite of that, the learned court has been pleased to allow the application filed by them, which is against the mandate of law. He also submits that the right, title and interest cannot be looked into by the learned court in the probate case and that is well settled. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pasupati Nath Das (Dead) v. Chanchal Kumar Das (Dead) by legal representative and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 547. He also submits that the will was executed by the testatrix at the age of 87 years.