Allowed

Sanjeev Keshav Verma v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Dec 2018TEST.CAS./58/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner obtained Letters of Administration for his father's estate based on a registered Will. After framing issues regarding the Will's validity, parties reached a settlement requiring financial compensation to the daughter. Court allowed the petition and issued Letters of Administration to the petitioner in accordance with the compromise.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration issued to the petitioner in accordance with the Memorandum of Settlement dated 24th June, 2018, subject to filing requisite court fees and administrative bond.

Sanjeev Keshav Verma Vs State & Anr. — Succession and Inheritance | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~17

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

TEST.CAS. 58/2015 & I.As. 13301/2015 & 14502/2018

¶4

SANJEEV KESHAV VERMA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Jasmeet Singh, Srivats Kaushal and Aditya Madaan, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE& ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Advocate with Ms. Atreyee Barthakur, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

% Date of Decision: 04^th December, 2018

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶10

J U D G M E N T

¶11

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

¶12

Present petition has been filed for grant of Letters of Administration of Will dated 18^th August, 2009 under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 with respect to the estate of deceased Col. Keshav Sain Verma, son of Late Sh.Nand Ram Verma.

¶13

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the son of the testator Late Col. Keshav Sain Verma who expired on 27^th October, 2012, in New Delhi, and executed a registered Will dated 18^th August, 2009, duly attested by Mr. Ravi Anthwal and Mr. Nazerath.

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

TEST.CAS.58/2015

¶16

It is stated that deceased has left behind two legal heirs, i.e. his son, the petitioner and a daughter, the respondent no. 2.

¶17

Notice was issued on the present petition on 8^th July, 2015. Vide order dated 24^th November 2015; citation has been published in the newspaper ‘Statesman’ English Edition and ‘Veer Arjun’ Hindi Edition. The respondent no.2 filed its objection to the present petition. 5. Vide Order dated 31^st May, 2016, the following issues were framed:

¶18

(i) Whether the Will dated 18.09.2009 is legal and valid? (OPP)

¶19

(ii)Whether the Will is bad in law for being vague and unclear? (OPR)

¶20

The petitioner filed its evidence by way of affidavit of himself, Mr. Dhani Ram, the draftsman and Mr Ravi Anthwal. The petitioner has proved the will dated 18^th August, 2009, executed by his father, and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. He has also proved the death certificate of the testator and the same is exhibited as PW1/B. He has also proved the death certificate of his mother dated 16^th August, 2013 and the same is exhibited as Ex1/C.

¶21

In the affidavit filed by Mr. Dhani Ram, he has admitted that he has drafted the Will as per the instructions of Late Shri Keshav Sain Verma.

¶22

The petitioner has also filed an affidavit of Mr. Ravi Anthwal, who is the attesting witness to the Will. In the said affidavit, Mr. Ravi Anthwal has confirmed the execution of the Will dated 18^th August, 2009 in his presence. 9. The petitioner and the respondent no.2 have filed the present application being I.A. 14502/2018 under Order 23 Rule 3, CPC read with Section 151 CPC, to take the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24^th June, 2018 on record and allow the present petition and grant Letters of

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

TEST.CAS.58/2015

¶25

Administration to the petitioner in accordance with Memorandum of Settlement dated 24^th June, 2018, which are exhibited as Ex. C-1 (Colly). 10. Today in Court, Mr. Jasmeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over the following three demand drafts in favour of respondent no.2:-

¶26

S.No.	Demand Draft N and Date of Issue	umber	Bank Br	Name and anch	Amount
1.	137633 dated November, 2018	26^th	Canara Vostro Process Centre,	Bank, Central ing Mumbai.	Rs.2484145.00/-
2.	137634 dated November, 2018	26^th	Canara Vostro Process Centre,	Bank, Central ing Mumbai	Rs.100000.00/-
3.	679178 dated November, 2018	22^nd	Kotak Bank, Narima	Mahindra Mumbai n Point	Rs.29,00,000.00

¶27

Mr. Jasmeet Singh assures this Court that in the event the aforesaid demand drafts are not accepted for any reason whatsoever, the petitioner shall replace the same with fresh demand drafts.

¶28

Both the learned counsel further assure and undertake to this Court that the parties shall comply with the Settlement terms mentioned in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement and Both the learned counsel further assure and undertake to this Court that the parties shall comply with the Settlement terms mentioned in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement.

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

TEST.CAS.58/2015

¶31

This Court has also perused the compromise application and Settlement Agreement and is of the opinion that they are lawful.

¶32

Consequently, the present application is allowed and the Letters of Administration is issued in favour of the petitioner in accordance with Memorandum of Settlement dated 24^th June, 2018, subject to the petitioner filing the requisite Court fee in terms of the valuation reports and submitting an administrative bond with one surety in accordance with law.

¶33

With the aforesaid observations, present petition and all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶34

MANMOHAN, J

¶35

DECEMBER 04, 2018 sp/KA

¶36

Page 4 of 4

¶37

TEST.CAS.58/2015

Sanjeev Keshav Verma v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Keshav Verma v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Beauty Business Vs Mr Raju Bhimani & Anr.

Sh. Mukesh Singhal Vs Gilvert Ispat Pvt. Ltd.

Ferrero Spa & Ors. Vs Mr Kishor J. Savlani & Ors.

M/S Japsin Jacob Wire Drawing(P) Ltd. Vs M/S Euro Multivision Ltd.

Tata Steel Limited Vs Satish Chandra Goel

M/S Prabh Dayal Om Prakash Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Pymen Cable Corporation & Anr.