CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4258 of 1996 PETITIONER: ASHOK KUMAR SINGHAL AND ORS. RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY & G.B. PATTANAIK JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1996 (2) SCR 833
The following Order of the Court was delivered: Leave granted. We have
heard learned counsel on both sides.
One Gyaso Bai, mother of the respondent had executed a will on March 20,
1964 in favour of Ram Swaroop. After her demise, he obtained a probate of
the will on April 16, 1965. The Government had acquired 57 bighas of land
and by award dated May 28, 1965 determined the compensation and the
reference Court directed payment of 2/3rd and l/3rd share respectively to
the appellants and the respondents.
The High Court had held that the appellants and the respondents are
entitled to 50% share each by judgment and order dated February 2, 1990 by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Bench in FA 24/78.
The question is : whether the view of the High Court which is sought to be
supported by learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. S.K. Jain is correct
in law ? According to him, in a reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, the Court is entitled to go into the question of the
share to which the parties are entitled. When the matter is in dispute.
reference Court under Section 30 or the High Court under Section 54 can go
into the question and direct payment of 50% share to each of the parties.
The view of the High Court is, therefore, correct. We find no force in the
contention.
Section 275 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads thus :
“275. – The application for probate or letters of administration, if made
and verified in the manner hereinafter provided, shall be conclusive for
the purpose of authorising the grant of probate or administration; and no
such grant shall be impeached by reason only that the testator or intestate
had no fixed place of abode or no property within the district at the time
of his death, unless by a proceeding to revoke the grant if obtained by a
fraud upon the Court.”
It would, thus, be seen that the probate granted by the competent civil
Court would be conclusive and bind all parties until the probate is duly
revoked in an appropriate proceedings. It may, therefore, be open to the
parties to impeach the probate in the manner provided under law. But so
long as that was not done, parties were bound by the probate. The will
indicates that the entitlement of the appellants is 2/3 share and that of
the respondents is 1/3 share. Therefore, the High Court and the civil Court
were not right in directing payment of the amount in the manner indicated
by the orders.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. However, this order will not preclude
the respondents to initiate such appropriate proceedings as may be open
under law. No costs.
