It was further pleaded that purported Will dated 15.06.1981 was number the genuine Will and was created after his death to deprive her mother of her legal entitlement in the suit property as a legal heir of the deceased.
Harnam Kaur Randhawa and Smt.
The numberobjection given by Smt.
The proceeding for obtaining the grant of probate was fraudulent proceeding which ought to have been set aside by the High Court.
Gian Hanspal, the defendant No.1, although in paragraph 1 there is mention of registered gift given by Smt.
Brief facts necessary to be numbericed for deciding this appeal are Signature Not Verified One, Surjan Singh Randhawa had purchased immovable Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date 2019.11.14 125648 IST Reason property which was subsequently numbered as 5/1A P a g e 1 35 Belvedere Road, Kolkata along with his brother, Bachittar Singh Randhawa, in the names of their respective wives, Smt.
and if Smt.
Beena Kumari Mehra is number denied number filing of written statement by Smt.
Dr. Harbhajan Singh Hanspal, who was substituted in the suit being T.S. No.61 of 1984 filed a written statement reiterating the claim on the basis of the registered gift deed dated 25.03.1964.
After the death of Smt.
Gian Hanspal, which cast a doubt on the alleged companysent given by Smt.
Photocopy of the numberobjection filed by Smt.
Your petitioner also inspected the said numberobjection certificate which your petitioners mother is alleged to have signed as Beena Mehra.
Harnam Kaur Randhawa in favour of the Smt.
On 28.06.2010, Rajiv Singh Hanspal, son of Smt.
Gian Singh and late Dr. Harbhajan Singh Hanspal with two others sold the premises, 5/1C Belvedere Road, Kolkata in favour of one Rungta Mines Limited.
There is numberdispute regarding relationship of the parties.
Gian Hanspal.
It is indicated that the appellants mother claimed that after the death of her mother on 12.04.1982 she and her elder sister, defendant No.1 became companysharer to the extent of share each in the property.
Along with probate petition three numberobjection certificates were attached i.e. certificates of Smt.
Harnam Kaur Randhawa in favour of Smt.
Gian Hanspal wife of Dr. Harbhajan Hanspal daughter of Surjan Singh Randhawa and numberobjection of Smt.
Harnam Kaur Randhawa wife of Surjan Singh Randhawa, Smt.
Beena Kumari Mehra in filing suit in 1984 claiming partition and numberreference of probate in the said proceedings clearly indicates that Smt.
The probate of the Will was granted on 04.06.1982 and the application for revocation of probate was filed by the appellant with affidavit which is dated 27.07.2011.
Gian Hanspal, Smt.
The said signature is number of your petitioners mother.
The mother of the appellant who companyld have possibly objected to the said grant had filed an affidavit for companysent.
Gian Hanspal is denied.
Had Smt.
There was numberreference of probate dated 04.06.1982 or numberobjection given by Beena Mehra in the written statement filed by Smt.
Gian Hanspal for partition of the property including the premises 5/1C Belvedere Road, Kolkata.
The appellant, daughter of Smt.
In the application P a g e 4 35 the case of the appellant was that after companying to know about the companyveyance she got inspected the probate application, records of P.L.A. No.90 of 1982 on 19.05.2011 and came to know that on the basis of numberobjection certificate of the appellants mother, late Smt.
Your petitioners advocate has obtained, a certified companyy of the application in said PLA P a g e 13 35 a companyy whereof is annexed hereto and marked Annexure F. In the application also details of Suit No.61 of 1984 filed by Beena Kumari Mehra, mother of the appellant, have been mentioned wherein written statement was filed by Smt.
Gian Hanspal.
The appeal was filed by the appellant before the Division Bench against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.08.2015 and which appeal also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 13.04.2017 impugned in the present appeal.
Gian Hanspal died during the pendency of the suit on 24.02.1988 and her heirs were impleaded.
Beena Mehra has been brought on record along with the rejoinder affidavit, a perusal of which appears that all the three numberobjections were numberarised by the same Notary, an Advocate, Shri Dilip Kumar Basu.
Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 are legal heirs of eldest daughter of deceased Surjan Singh Randhawa, Smt.
When the case was set by the appellant in the application for revocation that she came to know about the probate proceedings only through companyveyance deed executed by respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 in favour of respondent No.4 P a g e 15 35 dated 28.06.2010 and she got inspection of the records of PLA No.90 of 1982 on 19.05.2011 and came to know about the probate proceedings and alleged numberobjections by her mother, Smt.
From the records of the said PLA it further appears that purported numberobjections of the said Harnam Kaur Randhawa and Gian Hanspal also numberarised by the same Notary in April 1982 were filed.
It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had numberice and knowledge of P a g e 3 35 the Will at least from 29.08.1984 when the companyy of the written statement was served upon the plaintiff.
The companyies of PAN Card and Passport of your mother issued in July 1982 both bearing her genuine signatures are annexed thereto and companylectively marked Annexure E. Prior to her death on 5.5.2008 your petitioners mother had made her last Will dated 30th June 2005 which was registered.
Gian Hanspal, who was the beneficiary of the Will as well as the probate proceedings which there was numbermention of probate proceedings which makes us wonder as to why the probate proceedings were number mentioned in the written statement.
We numberice that along with the application for probating the Will which has been brought on the record as Annexure P 2, the propounder of probate has verified the application along with a companysent certificate which was annexed by Smt.
The filing of suit for partition by Smt.
In the suit Smt.
Gian Hanspal became entitled to share in the property.
Registered gift deed dated 25.03.1964 was executed by Smt.
Beena Kumari Mehra, filed an application G.A. No.2441 of 2011 for revocation of the probate granted on 05.06.1982 impleading respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 as the legal heirs of Gian Hanspal, respondent No.4, the purchasers of the premises in dispute by companyveyance deed and respondent Nos.5 and 6 as performa respondents were impleaded.
The said Will also bears her genuine signatures.
Gian Hanspal was impleaded as defendant.
Gian Hanspal and Smt.
No mention of probate proceedings clearly indicates P a g e 30 35 that neither Smt.
Beena Kumari Mehra was number even aware of the probate proceedings when the suit was filed.
In the written statement filed by Smt.
It was pleaded in the written statement that Smt.
The appellant came to know about the companyveyance deed and through companyveyance deed came to know the probate dated 05.06.1982.
Gian P a g e 28 35 Hanspal were beneficiary of the Will their numberobjection to the Will had numberadverse effect.
In the suit written statement was filed by Smt.
Beena Kumari Mehra and Smt.
The mother of the appellant never objected the grant during her life time.
Harnam Kaur and Smt.
We have companysidered the submissions of the learned companynsel of the parties and perused the material on record.
Beena Kumari Mehra in the year 1984 where there is neither any reference of the Will of Surjan Singh Randhawa number reference of probate proceedings and further in the written statement filed in the said suit by Smt.
It is number even claimed that Shri D.K. Basu who identified Beena Mehra was engaged as companynsel by Beena Mehra by executing any Vakalatnama.
Beena Mehra wife of V.K. Mehra another daughter of Surjan Singh Randhawa.
Gian Hanspal with regard to above property numbered as 5/1C Belvedere Road, Kolkata on 27.05.1982.
Beena Kumari Mehra has signed as alleged why she was number companyfronted with the probate proceedings in the written statement.
Harnam Kaur Randhawa has gifted the premises 5/1C Belvedere Road, Kolkata by registered Gift Deed dated 25.03.1964, the suit was claimed to be barred by time.
Gian Hanspal opposing the claim of the plaintiff.
The suit filed by Smt.
Beena Kumari Mehra given companysent in probate proceedings in the year 1982, it ought to have been reflected in the suit or in the written statement filed by Smt.
Both the learned Single Judge and the High Court in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for revocation had observed that there was inordinate delay in filing the application.
The factum of filing of suit for partition by Smt.
Beena Kumari Mehra in the probate proceedings.
A companyy of the said Will is annexed hereto and included in Annexure The handwriting under which the said words Beena Mehra have been written is number of your petitioners mother.
Appellants case was that probate was obtained upon false representation, without any numberice to the appellants mother who was legal heir of the deceased, Surjan Singh Randhawa.
Beena Kumari got dismissed for number prosecution and application for restoration of the suit also failed.
Both Smt.
Beena Kumari Mehra probate was granted.
Beena Kumari Mehra claimed that after the death of Smt.
Bachittar Singh Randhawa, brother of late Surjan Singh Randhawa filed a probate petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking grant of probate in relation to the Will dated 15.06.1961.
The companyy of the plaint of Suit No.61 of 1984 has been brought on record as Annexure P 4.
Surjan Singh Randhawa had two daughters, namely, Smt.
On 15.06.1961, Surjan Singh Randhawa executed a Will bequeathing the above immovable property to his eldest daughter, Smt.
Beena Kumari Mehra.
Beena Kumari Mehra filed a suit against Smt.
The main issue needs to be companysidered and answered in the appeal is as to whether sufficient grounds were made out in the application for revocation of probate filed by the appellant and the High Court companymitted error in rejecting the application as well as dismissing the appeal.
Celia Mary Randhawa.
P a g e 2 35 In April, 1984, Smt.
Gian Hanspal.
In the suit Smt.
Harnam Kaur Randhawa, the mother of the plaintiff, she along with her sister, Smt.
Beena Kumari Mehra who was the youngest daughter of Surjan P a g e 11 35 Singh Randhawa, the deceased whose Will was probated by the High Court.
Gian Hanspal, elder sister of Smt.
Surjan Singh Randhawa died on 28.11.1962.
Your petitioners mother always signed as Beena Kumari Mehra.
But there was numbermention in the entire written statement about the probate dated 04.06.1982.
Beena Kumari Mehra there is numbermention of Will of Surjan Singh Randhawa or probate proceedings to base her right and P a g e 29 35 to the companytrary rights were claimed only on the basis of registered deed of gift dated 25.03.1964 executed by Smt.
In the said proceedings, when a Will is sought to be probated after 20 years of its execution the High Court ought to have more cautiously proceeded with the probate proceedings.
Beena Kumari Mehra it is number open to the appellant to file an application for revocation of probate after 30 years of grant when both Smt.
Beena Kumari Mehra.
Harnam Kaur Randhawa in favour of Smt.
Application was rejected on these observations.
Gian Hanspal.
Beena Kumari Mehra was aware of probate proceedings number she was companyfronted with such proceedings.
The application of the appellant for revocation of the probate was companytested by the respondents.
From the companyveyance deed she claimed to know about the case being No.
It was further pleaded that signatures of the appellants mother on the said numberobjection certificate were forged signatures as the appellants mother was shown to have signed as Beena Mehra, whereas she used to sign as Beena Kumari Mehra which is apparent from her signatures in Passport, Will and her PAN Card.
Beena Mehra was material since Beena Mehra being second daughter of deceased was being dis inherited from the suit property.
Immediately thereafter, the said Smt.
The companyduct of Smt.
As advised your petitioner companye down to Kolkata and took inspection of the records of PLA No.90 of 1982 on 19.5.2011.
The appellant is a daughter of Smt.
The brothers of the appellant were impleaded as proforma respondents.
Harnam Kaur Randhawa and Smt.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed against the Division Bench judgment dated 13.04.2017 of Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 24.08.2015 rejecting the application filed by the appellant for revocation of probate dated 04.06.1982 in relation to Will of one Surjan Singh Randhawa.
The suit filed by Smt.
