Shri Satpal v. The State & Ors.

1. This appeal was filed against the impugned judgment of the probate court dated19.2.1996 whereby the probate petition filed by the petitioner, 2014:DHC:2444 son of Shri Kundan Lal Wadhawan and Smt. Karam Devi Wadhawan claiming probate of the Will dated 20.6.1977 of Smt. Karam Devi Wadhawan was dismissed.

2. The claim under the Will of Karam Devi Wadhwan had arisen because there were disputes as regards rights in the immovable property bearing No. 1453-54, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti, New Delhi. Counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court on 15.4.2010, and which reads as under:- “It is stated by learned counsels that a suit for possession with regard to the property in question has been filed by the respondent in the trial court on the basis of probate granted in his favour with respect to the ‘Will’ executed by the father of the parties. The said suit is at the stage of final arguments. It will be appropriate if this appeal is heard after the disposal of that suit. The trial court is therefore directed to hear the matter pending before it and dispose of the same within six months from now. The appeal be listed after the decision of the trial court in the suit.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant says that now the civil court of Ms. Anjani Mahajan, CJ-02, District (North), Tis Hazari Courts has passed the judgment on 2.1.2013 by which the suits for possession and injunction filed by Shri Gurbaksh Rai Wadhawan, and who is the contesting respondent in this appeal, has been dismissed. The suits for injunction and possession were with respect to the Rani Bagh property. Because the suits are dismissed, counsel for the appellant says that the appellant will have ownership rights in the suit premises in view of the Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

4. In view of the fact that the suits of the contesting respondent against the appellant have been dismissed by the judgment dated 2.1.2013, for that reason, this appeal is not pressed because the judgment dated 2.1.2013 has become final and has not been challenged by the contesting respondent herein and who was the plaintiff in the suits before the trial court. In view of the aforesaid position, counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal and prays for liberty to revive this appeal in case there is a successful challenge to the judgment dated 2.1.2013 passed in Suit No. 966/06.

5. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the appellant to revive this appeal in case the judgment dated 2.1.2013 passed in the suits for possession and injunction by the contesting respondent herein are for any reason set aside.

6. Parties are left to bear their own costs. May 08, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. nk