Remanded

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others v. Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No 4 Special Judge, Court NO.4 U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2024A482/8452/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C., the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court stayed further proceedings in a related civil complaint while notice was issued to departments to file objections on challenges to a revisional order remanding a case for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on further proceedings in Case No.4903 of 2021 regarding the applicants; notice issued to respondent no.3 to file objections within four weeks.

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others vs Additional District… — Succession and Inheritance | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8452 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- Additional District And Sessions Judge Court No 4 Special Judge, Court No.4 U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Issue notice to respondent no.3. Steps be taken within a week.

¶7

Respondents may file objections within four weeks to which the applicants may file reply within next two weeks. List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶8

Instant application under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants raising a challenge to the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Gonda, in Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2023 in re: Kaushalya Devi vs. State, whereby the learned revisional court has remitted the matter to the learned trial court to decide the complaint filed by respondent no.3 afresh.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants, who claim themselves to be the nephews of one Vindhyachal Prasad Gupta, who was the husband of respondent no.3 and who died on 21.09.2017, is that during his life time Sri Gupta had executed an unregistered Will on 04.12.2003. The applicants in the capacity of being the nephews had the said Will registered on 26.08.2019. Copy of the registered Will is Annexure-7 to the petition.

¶10

Initially, the respondent no.3 had lodged a first information report dated 14.01.2020 in which a final report was submitted on 17.12.2020. Upon a protest being filed on 20.03.2021 the same has been treated as a complaint and was registered as Complaint No.4903 of 2021 in re: Kaushalya Devi vs. Sunil and others, wherein it was alleged by respondent no.3 that the said Will has been got registered by the applicants by putting up a fake and fictitious person. The learned trial court vide order dated 10.07.2023 in Complaint No.4903 of 2021 in re: Kaushalya Devi vs. Sunil and others, a copy of which is

¶11

Annexure-20 to the petition, rejected the said complaint.

¶12

Being aggrieved, the respondent no.3 filed a revision and the learned revisional court vide impugned order dated 26.07.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, has set-aside the order dated 10.07.2023 and has remanded back the matter to the learned trial court to decide the complaint afresh keeping in view the observations made in the said order.

¶13

Raising a challenge to the aforesaid order instant application has been filed.

¶14

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the learned revisional court has been swayed by the statement made under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which indicates that some impersonator was put up by the applicants in order to have the said Will registered.

¶15

The contention is that the learned revisional court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 40 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1908') which provides that either the testator or after his death any person claiming as executor or otherwise under a will, may present it to any Registrar or Sub-Registrar for registration.

¶16

Placing reliance on the aforesaid provisions of Section 40 of the Act, 1908, the argument is that once the applicants are in fact the nephews of Sri Gupta who had executed the Will on 04.12.2003 and died on 21.09.2017 as such considering the provisions of Section 40 of the Act, 1908 the applicants had the said Will registered on 26.08.2019. It is also contended that this aspect of the matter would also be apparent from perusal of the copy of the registered Will which indicates (page 84) that the executor of the Will has died on 21.09.2017 as specifically stands recorded while the said Will was registered.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid, prima facie, a case for interference is made out. As such, till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Case No.4903 of 2021 in re: Kaushalya Devi vs. Sunil and others, so far as it pertains to the applicants shall remain stayed.

¶18

Order Date :- 20.9.2024 A. Katiyar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others v. Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No 4 Special Judge, Court NO.4 U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others v. Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No 4 Special Judge, Court NO.4 U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juvenile Delinquent X Thru. His Father Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Richa Choudhary and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Datt Mishra and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt Rani Devi vs State of Up and 5 Others

Hari Ram @ Hari vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rukhsar Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another