1999 (12) TMI 873 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application under Order 1 Rule 10 for impleading as a party.
2. Alleged Will dated 1.10.1987 and its genuineness.
3. Applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
4. Necessary and proper party in probate proceedings.
5. Direct interest in litigation and locus standi.
6. Adverse inference due to non-filing of probate for the alleged Will.
7. Granting probate and potential revocation under Section 263 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application under Order 1 Rule 10 for impleading as a party:
The application was filed by S. Gurcharan Singh to be impleaded in the proceedings for the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will attached, relating to the estate of Mrs. Raseel Kohli. The applicant claims rights based on a Will dated 1.10.1987 executed by the deceased. The court noted that the application was moved after the applicant learned of the proceedings from his uncle.

2. Alleged Will dated 1.10.1987 and its genuineness:
The court observed that the alleged Will dated 1.10.1987 had not been produced earlier. Given the lack of blood relationship between the deceased and the applicant, and the applicant's non-possession of the relevant property, the court found it reasonable to question the genuineness of the Will. The court emphasized that probate proceedings should have been initiated much earlier if the Will were genuine.

3. Applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The court referred to the decision in Ramanand Thakur Vs. Permanand Thakur, which stated that the right to apply for probate accrues every day as long as the Will remains unprofaned. However, the court also considered the decision in Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum Vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, which held that Article 137 applies to any petition filed under any Act to a civil court. The court concluded that the period of three years under Article 137 would commence from the date the legatee knew the Will was likely to be disputed.

4. Necessary and proper party in probate proceedings:
The court noted that the applicant was not a Class I heir of the deceased and thus not a necessary party to the proceedings. Even if the applicant's case was presumed correct, it would not automatically reject the current petition since the Will on which the petition was founded could still be genuine.

5. Direct interest in litigation and locus standi:
The court referred to Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Ors., which established that only parties with a direct interest, not merely a commercial interest, should be impleaded. The court found that the applicant did not have a direct interest in the current proceedings and had not filed a petition for probate of the alleged Will dated 1.10.1987.

6. Adverse inference due to non-filing of probate for the alleged Will:
The court drew an adverse inference regarding the authenticity of the Will dated 1.10.1987 due to the applicant's failure to initiate probate proceedings for over a decade. The court emphasized that permitting the applicant to join the proceedings would cause undue delay and injustice.

7. Granting probate and potential revocation under Section 263 of the Act:
The court cited Mrs. Elizabeth Antony Vs. Michael Charles John Chown Lengera, noting that granting probate does not decide title disputes and that probate can be revoked under Section 263 of the Act if necessary. The court stressed that the findings regarding caveatable interest are limited to the probate grant and do not affect the right to seek revocation.

Conclusion:
The application was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5000 due to its vexatious nature and potential to cause delay. The court underscored the importance of timely probate proceedings and the necessity of genuine interest in litigation for impleading parties.