Allowed

Satish Kumar Sood & Anr. v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC2 May 2011TEST.CAS./55/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted a petition for probate of a Will under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act. Finding the Will valid and uncontested by a beneficiary, the court issued probate to the petitioners regarding the deceased's estate shares without requiring administration or security bonds.

What did the court decide?

Probate of the Will dated 25th October 2008 directed to be issued to petitioner; administration and security bonds dispensed with.

Satish Kumar Sood & Anr. Vs State & Anr. — Succession and Inheritance | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

+ TEST.CAS. 55/2010 & IA No.7050/2011

¶3

% Date of Decision: 2^nd May, 2011

¶4

SATISH KUMAR SUD & ANR ..... Petitioners Through : Ms. Ginny Jetley Rautary, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through : None.

¶7

CORAM :-

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

¶9

Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES

¶11

Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?

¶12

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶13

This is a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate of the Will dated 25^th October, 2008 of late Kishori Lal Sud who died on 24^th December, 2009 leaving behind two sons, Satish Kumar Sud and Vijay Kumar Sud (the petitioners) and one daughter, Suman Sud (respondent No.2).

¶14

Notice of this petition was given to respondent No.2 as well as the general public by means of a citation published in Statesman on 30^th August, 2010. There is no opposition to the petition. Respondent No.2, daughter of late Kishori Lal Sud has filed reply dated 14^th September, 2010 in which she has admitted the Will dated 25^th October, 2008 of her father and has given her no objection to the grant of

¶15

TEST.CAS. 55/2010 Page 1 of 4

¶16

probate to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 has also admitted the 7/16^th share of each of the petitioners in terms of the Will of her father. Respondent No.2 has also admitted her share in the suit property to be 1/8^th .

¶17

The deceased had 5/8^th share in property bearing No.C-31, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 which was purchased by jointly late Kishori Lal Sud and his wife Savitri Sud vide sale deed dated 16^th February, 1961. Savitri Sud died interstate on 20^th April, 1989 whereupon her 1/2 share devolved equally upon her husband and three children. As such, late Kishori Lal Sud became owner of 5/8^th share (1/2 + 1/8) and the three children became owner of 1/8^th share of the suit property.

¶18

The petitioners have examined three witnesses to prove the will of their father. Petitioner No.1 appeared in the witness box as PW-1 whereas the two witnesses to the Will appeared as PW-2 and PW-3. 5. PW-1 Satish Kumar Sud deposed that her father late Kishori Lal Sud was the permanent resident of C-31, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 and he died on 24^th December, 2009. The original death certificate was proved as Ex.PW1/1. PW-1 further deposed that his parents were the joint owners of the property bearing No.C-31, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 by virtue of sale deed dated 16^th February, 1961 which was proved as Ex.PW1/2. Smt. Savitri Sud expired on 20^th April, 1989 whereupon her 1/2 share TEST.CAS. 55/2010 Page 2 of 4

¶19

devolved upon her husband and three children in equal shares. As a result, Kishori Lal Sud became owner of 5/8^th share whereas the petitioners and respondent No.2 became owner of 1/8^th share each in the suit property. Late Kishori Lal Sud expired on 25^th December, 2009 leaving behind Will dated 25^th October, 2008 whereby his 5/8^th share devolved upon petitioners No.1 and 2. The original Will dated 25^th October, 2008 was proved as Ex.PW1/3.

¶20

PW-2 J.N. Rampal and PW-3 N.K. Narula deposed that they knew late Kishori Lal Sud and his family for a very long time. They further deposed that the deceased Kishori Lal Sud executed the Will in their presence and they signed the Will as witness in the presence of the deceased and presence of each other.

¶21

The notice of the petition was issued to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority on 2^nd August, 2010 in pursuance to which the valuation report has been received from the Tehsildar, Sub-Division, Rajouri Garden on 10^th November, 2010.

¶22

On the basis of the evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the Will Ex.PW1/3 is the last and valid testament of late Kishori Lal Sud and the petitioners are entitled to the grant of probate of the said Will. Respondent No.2 has given her no objection to the grant of probate. 9. The petitioner has sought the dispensation of administration and security bonds in I.A. No.7050/2011 on TEST.CAS. 55/2010 Page 3 of 4

¶23

the ground that the petitioners are the natural heirs of the deceased and are in possession of the suit property in terms of the Will of the deceased and respondent No.2 has given her no objection to the grant of probate. In the cases of Sambhu P. Jaisinghani v. Kanayalal P. Jaisinghani 60 (1995) DLT 1 and Shakuntala Taxali v. State 61(1996) DLT 267 , this Court dispensed with the administration and security bonds on similar grounds. Following the aforesaid judgments, the requirement of administration and security bonds is dispensed with.

¶24

In the facts and circumstances of this case, petition is allowed and the probate of the Will dated 25^th October, 2008 of late Kishori Lal Sud is directed to be issued to the petitioners in respect of the estate of the deceased upon furnishing of requisite Court-fees by the petitioners.

¶25

J.R. MIDHA, J

¶26

MAY 2, 2011 s.pal

¶27

Page 4 of 4

¶28

TEST.CAS. 55/2010

Satish Kumar Sood & Anr. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Sood & Anr. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanchal Chakraorty Vs Tapashi Chakraborty

Smt. Gyan Devi Garg Vs State & Others

Satnam Singh Bola & Anr. Vs Vineet Bhutani & Anr.

Indira Devi Vs Rajesh Kumar & Anr.

Shri Subinder Jeet Singh Khurana Vs State

Project Management Institute Inc. Vs Project Management Certification Institute & Anr.