Indisputably, the property at A 4, Chirag Co operative Housing Society Limited known as Chirag Enclave, New Delhi was mutated in the name of said Faiz by an order dated 12.4.2006.
Thereafter, appellant approached Permanent Lok Adalat PLA of the DDA, which by an award dated 20.2.2001 directed DDA to grant mutation in his favour.
The companyrt, however, suo motu directed issuance of numberice.
On or about 17.7.2000, the said Authority informed Askari that his request for mutation companyld number be acceded to as 1 the appellant companyld number produce the original companyy of the Will dated 3.5.1998 2 the property in question was under the possession of Shri M.C. Reddy and Shri M.H. Reddy, and 3 Title Suit T.S. No.
The aforesaid divergences are fundamental in nature and beyond the range of natural variations and intended disguise and when companysidered companylectively they lead me to the above said opinion.
Cognizance of offences had been taken in the year 2002.
Appellants were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi by an order dated 16.11.2002.
She died on 22.2.2004.
Writ Petition C No.
Allegedly, she executed a Will in favour of the appellants on 3.5.1998.
2263 of 2002 filed by Syeda has been allowed by an order dated 29.9.2003, holding I am thus of the companysidered view that the impugned direction dated 20.2.2001 companyld number have been passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and the same is hereby quashed.
On or about 30.1.2003, appellants filed an application for grant of probate being Testamentary Case No.
The questioned signatures marked Q1 Q2 on the other hand are slow and drawn in their execution exhibit pen lift at unusual places, stubbed finish and both the signatures marked Q1 and Q2 are superimposed over each other.
Indisputably Syeda filed a civil suit in the companyrt of Subordinate Judge, Patna, which was marked as Civil Suit No.
An appeal preferred thereagainst before the Division Bench of High Court was dismissed.
Indisputably, Syeda also made an application to the DDA on 23.4.1999 for grant of mutation in her favour.
3579 of 2002, which has been dismissed by a learned single judge of the same High Court by an order dated 8.4.2003.
Before embarking on the said legal question, we may numberice the factual matrix involved herein.
under different lighting companyditions and I am of the opinion that The persons who wrote red enclosed signatures stamped and marked A1 to A4 did number write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 and Q2, for the following reasons All the admitted signatures marked A1 to A4 are freely written, show natural variations and numbermal companysistency among themselves which are observed in the genuine signatures of an individual executed over a period of time under varying circumstances.
184 of 2005.
It has already been held by this Court in Smt.
262 of 1991 filed by testatrix against the appellant was pending in the civil companyrt in Hazaribagh.
61 of 2005 in Testamentary Case No.1 of 2003 before the Jharkhand High Court, which was dismissed by a learned single judge by an order dated 4.1.2008 whereagainst L.P.A. No.
Further, numberpurpose would be served in companytinuation of the proceedings before a Permanent Lok Adalat in view of the disputes number being capable of reconciliation till such time as the right of Respondent No.2 to the property in question in pursuance to the bequeath made under the will in dispute is finally adjudicated upon.
She expired on 23.5.1998.
In the said order, only liberty has been granted to the applicants and the trial companyrt has been directed only to dispose of the present application in accordance with law.
One Shamim Amna Imam testatrix indisputably was the owner of the properties in question.
Askari and Sayed Akabir Hussain filed writ petitions thereagainst.
Indisputably, appellants preferred Writ Petition Criminal No.
71 of 2000, inter alia, questioning the genuineness of the said will based on which the appellants had claimed mutation in respect of the property at Delhi.
Her legal heir was one Smt.
Indisputably, Faiz, the nephew of the testratrix filed Caveat Petition No.
636 of 2004 before the Delhi High Court for quashing of the FIR dated 19.9.2002, which by reason of an order dated 29.7.2004 has been disposed of, stating The petitioners, however, will be at liberty to move the trial companyrt by way of moving an application for stay of the criminal trial pending adjudication of the question of genuineness of the Will by the Civil Court Relying on or on the basis thereof, the appellants filed an application under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking stay of proceedings of the criminal case, which has been dismissed by an order dated 10.2.2005, stating The perusal of the case shows that the accused have been charge sheeted for the offences under Section 420/468/448/34 IPC and during the investigation the documents including the alleged Will was seized by the IO and the same was sent to CFSL for expert opinion and it has been opined that the alleged Will was a forged one and on the basis of the said opinion the Honble High Court had already opined in the order dated 29.7.2004 that there were numbergood grounds for quashment of the FIR and the proceedings arising out of the same, and the petition for quashing of the FIR was dismissed and the petitioners were given liberty by the Honble High Court to move the trial companyrt by way of a proper applications for stay of criminal trial pending adjudication of the question of the genuineness of the Will by the Civil Court.
32 of 2008 was preferred but was dismissed by a Division Bench of the same Court by an order dated 2.4.2008, inter alia, holding Admittedly, the appellant caveator is neither the brother of the testatrix, number the descendant of the brother or the sister of the testatrix.
A Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst has also been dismissed by this Court.
The matter was investigated into and the disputed Will was sent for examination by the experts to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the same was found to be forged, stating All the documents were carefully and thoroughly examined with scientific instruments such as Stereo Microscope, Video Spectral Comparator IV, Docucenter, VSC 2000/HR and Poliview System etc.
He also applied before the Delhi Development Authority DDA for grant of mutation in respect of the property situated at A 4, Chirag Co operative Housing Society Limited known as Chirag Enclave, New Delhi on or about 25.2.1999 in view of the Will dated 3.5.1998.
Indisputably, Syeda on or about 9.9.1999 executed a Will bequeathing her right, title and interest in the property in favour of Mr. Faiz Murtaza Ali Faiz for short .
Syeda also filed a criminal companyplaint on or about 19.9.2002 against the appellants under Sections 420/468/444/34 IPC in Greater Kailash I, New Delhi, Police Station alleging that the Will dated 3.5.1998 had been forged by the appellants.
The said writ petitions also were dismissed.
After her death Faiz claimed himself to be her legal heir on the strength of the said registered will dated 9.9.1999.
Syeda Mehndi Imam Syeda for short , the mother of the testatrix.
On or about 23.1.1999, Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam Askari for short filed an application before the office of the Sub Registrar Hazaribagh in the State of Jharkhand for registration of the said Will dated 3.5.1998.
It arises out of a judgment and order dated 23.7.2005 passed by a learned single judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No.
She was impleaded as a party only on 20.9.2001.
Effect of pendency of a probate proceeding vis vis a criminal case involving allegations of forgery of a Will is the question involved in this appeal.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
2263 of 2002 before the Delhi High Court for quashing of the said order dated 20.2.2001 of the PLA in pursuance whereof further proceedings before the PLA was directed to be stayed by an order 3.5.2002.
Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, appellants preferred Criminal Revision No.
Syeda filed a writ petition marked as Writ Petition C No.
Aggrieved thereby, Askari filed Writ Petition C No.
