DARSHANA KUMARI Vs. SATYA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 23.8.1983 passed by the court of the Addl. Distt. Judge, Ludhiana, who set aside the order dated 13.11.1982 passed by the court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ludhiana, who allowed the objections of Darshana Kumari and orders for the grant of the succession certificate in her favour with regard to the estate of Som Parkash.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Satya Wati and Arti Parkash alias Jagat Pal, claiming themselves to the widow and son of Som Parkash filed an application Under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Ac t(here in after called 'the Act') for the grant of the Succession certificate, with respect to the estate of Som Parkash on the basis of natural heir-ship. The notice was given to the general public. During the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court, Darshna Kumari filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, requesting that she be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. It was urged by her that the relations between the Som Parkash and Satya Wati were very much strained. So much so, Satya Wati filed an application Under Section 488, Cr.P.C, for the grant of maintenance against her husband and that maintenance was being paid to Sayta Wati till the death of Som Parkash. Arti Parkash alias Jagat Pal throughout out lived with his mother and never resided with his father Som Parkash. In fact, they resided with Girdhari Lai, who is father of Satya Wati. There was no love or relationship between the applicants and the deceased. The applicants never served Som Parkash during his life time. Darshna Kumari is the daughter of the brother of the deceased. The father of Darshna Kumari had good relations with his brother. She served Som Parkash throughout his life. Out of love and affection rendered by her to the deceased, Som Parkash executed a valid will dated 30.11.1978 in her favour bequeathing his entire moveable and immovable assets in favour of Darshna Kumari and as such, she is the sole heir and is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased Som Parkash. The application, which was moved by Darshna Kumari under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, was treated as objections to the Succession application. The notice of the application/objections was given to Satya Wati and her son Arti Parkash alias Jagat Pal, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. They also denied the fectum of the execution of the Will in favour of Darshna Kumari. They pleaded that if there is any will, the same is forged. In case, Darshna Kumari wants to base her claim on the basis of the Will, she can obtain a probate first and in the absence of the probate she has no fight to contest the petition Under Section 322 of the Act,

(3.) From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues on 4.8.1980:-