Pradeep Bhalla vs Sangeeta and Others

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Som Nath Bhalia, plaintiff in the suit died. Issue came up as to who should be brought on record as legal representative.

His wife Sangita Bhalia filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC stating that her husband had executed a will in here favour. She sbught to be brought on record as the plaintiff.

Impugned order dated 28th January, 2006 has brought on record the widow of the deceased as the plaintiff.

It is urged before me that will was not probated and, therefore, the wife of the deceased could not have made any claim under the will. sought Objector is the nephew of the deceased.

I need not note the laige number of authorities which, while dealing with Section 57 and Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 have opined that pertaining to Hindus and in relation to wills executed in the Union Territory of Delhi, probate of the will is not a sine qua non for enforcing a right under the will.

Decision of S.K. Kaul, J. reported as 2005 (VII) AD (Delhi) 878, Raj an Suri v. State and Anr. may be noted. The said decision has noted various authorities of this Court as also Punjab High Court on the point that for Hindus, pertaining to wills executed in Delhi, there is no requirement of obtaining a probate as a sine qua non before enforcing a right under the will.

Latest decision of this Court on the point is pronounced by J.P. Singh, J. reported as 2006 (VII) AD (Delhi) 652 Shashi Roy v. Archana Chopra and Ors.

An un-reported order dated 19.3.1996 passed by K. Ramamoorthy, J. in S.No. 1355/1984 Bhim Singh v. Sugriv Singh has been cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The said order takes a view that no right under a will can be enforced till probate has been obtained.

I have perused the said decision. It has not noted the various decisions of this Court and the Punjab High Court rendered prior to 19th March 1996, which decisions have been noted by J.P. Singh, J. and S.K. Kaul, J. in the 2 decisions noted hereinabove.

Lastly it is urged that costs imposed are excessive. I do not think so.

The petition is dismissed.