Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arose from a dispute over the estate of Zorawar Singh, who executed a Will dated June 16, 1985 and a codicil dated October 21, 1995, bequeathing self-acquired property in New Delhi. Zorawar Singh died on January 4, 1986. Two suits were filed: one by the respondents (CS(OS) No. 3310/2012) seeking declaration and permanent injunction regarding the Will and codicil of Zorawar Singh and a Will dated June 18, 2009 executed by Smt. Ram Pyari, wife of Zorawar Singh; and another by the appellant (CS(OS) No. 430/2012) claiming natural succession. The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was not maintainable in view of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which requires probate or letters of administration to establish a right as executor or legatee. However, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside this order, holding that the bar under Section 213 was not applicable, and directed that both suits be clubbed and common evidence led. The Supreme Court examined the short question of whether probate is necessary in the National Capital Region of Delhi. The Court analyzed Sections 213 and 57 of the Act, noting that Section 213(2) limits the application of Section 213(1) to wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs or Jains only where such wills are of the classes specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57. Section 57(a) applies to wills made within the territories subject to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts at Madras and Bombay. Section 57(b) applies to wills made outside those territories but relating to immovable property situated within those territories. Since Delhi was not part of Bengal, Madras or Bombay, and the property in question was in Delhi, the Court held that the requirement of probate under Section 213(1) does not apply. The Court relied on precedents from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court, including Ram Chand v. Sardara Singh, Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand Sahni, and Mrs. Winifred Nora Theophilus v. Mr. Lila Deane, which consistently held that no probate is necessary for wills made in Punjab or Delhi by Hindus. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Division Bench's order and directing that both suits be tried together on merits.
Headnote
A) Succession Law - Probate Requirement - Section 213 read with Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - The requirement of probate under Section 213(1) does not apply to wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs or Jains outside the territories of Bengal, Madras and Bombay, unless the will relates to immovable property situated within those territories - The court held that since Delhi was not part of the territories specified in Section 57(a) and (b), no probate is required for a will made in Delhi by a Hindu relating to immovable property in Delhi (Paras 6-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether it is necessary to seek probate or letters of administration in respect of a Will under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in the National Capital Region of Delhi
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Division Bench order that probate is not required for a Will made in Delhi by a Hindu, and directed that both suits be tried together on merits.
Law Points
- Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act
- 1925 does not require probate for wills made by Hindus
- Buddhists
- Sikhs or Jains outside the territories of Bengal
- Madras and Bombay
- unless the will relates to immovable property situated within those territories
