Smt. Neetu Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.—The Petitioner has filed this petition claiming that her father was one of the Chiefs of Punjab-Buria State. After he died, all his immovable property was inherited by his son-Respondent No. 3 as per the decision in RFA No. 135 of 1956. However, with regard to certain properties he had left behind a Will dated 1st September, 1984. As per this Will apart from other properties his fire arms would devolve upon the Petitioner. It is for the enforcement of this provision of the Will that the present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

(i) produce the complete records of the case.

(ii) issue orders to the Respondent No. 2 to send comments of the case to Respondent No. 1.

(iii) issue orders to the Respondent No. 1 not to consider the order R.F.A. 135 of 1956, while deciding the matter. The Respondent No. 1 be directed not to consider the application of Respondent No. 3, as it was never filed before him;

(iv) issue orders to the Respondent No. 2 for not taking any action for releasing the same in favour of Respondent No. 3 clandestinely without providing opportunity to file appeal or writ against adverse orders, during the pendency of this writ petition;

(v) the cost of this writ petition may also be awarded to the Petitioner through out.

In response to the petition, Respondent No. 3 has filed written statement averring that with regard to inter alia, the fire arms, his father was incompetent to make the Will.

In my opinion the question regarding the validity of the Will-whether on ground of competency or otherwise cannot be gone into by this Court in writ jurisdiction. In the circumstances this petition is dismissed as being not maintainable. However, since this Court had passed an interim order restraining the Respondent No. 3 from alienating the fire arms in question, it would be in the interest of justice if the said restraint order is ordered to be kept in operation for a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by any party so as to enable the Petitioner to try and obtain relief from a competent Court.

At this stage Mr. Amit Sethi, who is appearing for Respondent No. 3, has submitted that as a matter of fact originally an interim order had been passed restraining the release of the weapons but the same was vacated on 2nd August, 1989. Thereafter a fresh order dated 13th May, 1994 was passed where again it was directed that the disputed fire arms be not released. Ultimately by order dated 4th October, 1994 it was directed that the fire arms are not to be disposed of in any manner. Respondent No. 3 then moved C. M. No. 6268 of 1995 for vacation of the order dated 4th October, 1994. This application came up for hearing initially on 9th June, 1995 when notice thereof was issued for 10th July, 1995 and the office was directed to fix the main case along therewith, after which it has come up today. He submits that there is a possibility that the weapons may have been disposed of during the period when there was no interim order. It would be open to him to raise and establish this plea in the competent Court before whom this matter may be initiated as a consequence of the decision of this petition.