Indian Succession Act, 1925 – ss.57, 213 – One ‘ZS’ owned certain immoveable property in New Delhi – He executed Will dtd. June 16, 1985 and codicil dtd. Oct. 21, 1995 bequeathing selfacquired property in favour of both the parties – ‘ZS’ died – Two suits filed – One by the respondents inter alia claiming permanent injunction in respect of the Will and codicil executed by ‘ZS’ and also will dtd. June 18, 2009 executed by the wife of ‘ZS’ –Other suit filed by the appellant claiming natural succession – Division Bench of the High Court held that the bar u/s.213 is not applicable and set aside the order of rejection of plaint directing that both the suits be clubbed and common evidence be led together – Issue as to whether it is necessary to seek probate or letter of administration in respect of a Will in terms of s.213 in the National Capital Region of Delhi – Held: Present National Capital Region Delhi was part of erstwhile State of Punjab prior to Nov. 1, 1966 – Statutory provisions are clear that the 1925 Act is applicable to Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, who were subject to the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Madras or Bombay [Clause (a) of s.57 ] – Secondly, it is applicable to all Wills and codicils made outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immoveable property within the territories aforementioned- [Clause (b) of s.57] – Clause (c) of s.57 inter alia relates to the Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain on or after the first day of Jan. 1927, to which provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b) – However, subsec. (2) of s.213 applies only to Wills made by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain where such Wills are of the classes specified in clauses
(a) or (b) of s.57 – Thus, clause (c) is not applicable in view of s.213(2) – No error in the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 7, r.11.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The statutory provisions are clear that the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is applicable to Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, who were subject to the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Madras or Bombay - {clause (a) of Section 57 of the Act}. Secondly, it is applicable to all Wills and codicils made outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immoveable property within the territories aforementioned - Clause (b) of Section 57. The clause (c) of Section 57 of the Act relates to the Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain on or after the first day of January, 1927, to which provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b). However, sub-section (2) of Section
213 of the Act applies only to Wills made by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain where such Wills are of the classes specified in clauses
(a) or (b) of Section 57. Thus, clause (c) is not applicable in view of Section 213(2) of the Act. In view thereof, the Wills and codicils in respect of the persons who are subject to the LieutenantGovernor of Bengal or who are within the local limits of ordinary original civil jurisdiction of High Court of Madras or Bombay and in respect of the immoveable properties situated in the above three areas. Such is the view taken in the number of judgments referred to above in the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as in Delhi as also by Supreme Court in Clarence Pais. No error in the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. [Paras 12-14] [797-G-H; 798-A-E]
Clarence Pais & Ors. v. Union of India (2001) 4 SCC
325 : [2001] 2 SCR 43 – relied on.
Ram Chand v. Sardara Singh & Ors. AIR 1962 P&H
382 ; M/s. Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand Sahni & Ors. 1968 AIR (Punjab) 108 ; Mrs. Winifred Nora Theophilus v. Mr. Lila Deane & Ors. AIR 2002 Delhi 6 ; Shri Rajan Suri & Anr. v. The State & Anr. AIR 2006 Delhi 48 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.