2009 (12) TMI 1057 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Will dated 21.12.1995 vs. Will dated 04.02.1997.
2. Impleadment of Shri Chetan Dayal as respondent.
3. Res judicata and jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Court.
4. Limitation period for filing the probate petition.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Will dated 21.12.1995 vs. Will dated 04.02.1997:
The petitioner sought letters of administration u/s 278 of the Indian Succession Act for the estate of the deceased, relying on a Will dated 21.12.1995. The respondent contested this, asserting that a subsequent Will dated 04.02.1997 was the last and valid Will. The Chandigarh Courts had previously decreed that the Will dated 04.02.1997 was the last and valid Will.

2. Impleadment of Shri Chetan Dayal as respondent:
An application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC was filed to implead Shri Chetan Dayal, a beneficiary under the Will dated 04.02.1997. The court allowed this application, noting that the validity of either Will would affect the applicant's rights in the estate, and he had a caveatable interest as per the tests laid down in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha (2008) 4 SCC 300.

3. Res judicata and jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Court:
The petitioner argued that the Chandigarh Court was not competent to decide the validity of the Will, citing Supreme Court decisions in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 507 and T. Venkata Narayana and Ors. v. Venkata Subbamma (Smt) (dead) and Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 457. The court acknowledged that only a probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a Will, thus the question of res judicata could not be determined at this stage.

4. Limitation period for filing the probate petition:
The court examined whether the petition was time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The right to apply accrued in 1999 when the petitioner became aware of the dispute over the Will. The petitioner did not approach the court within the prescribed three-year period, making the petition time-barred. The court referenced Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur (2008) 8 SCC 463, which held that Article 137 applies to applications for probate or letters of administration.

Conclusion:
The court held that the probate petition was not maintainable as it was time-barred. Consequently, Probate case No. 5/2009 was dismissed.