K. Karthik and Another vs Jayanthi Iyengar and Others

R. Sudhakar, J.—This Application has been filed praying this Court to implead the Application herein as Respondents 5 & 6 in the above

O.P. No. 842 of 2012. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants.

The Original Petition has been filed by Jayanthi Iyengar and the Respondent in the Original Petition are the brothers and sisters of the Petitioner.

The Original Petition is filed for grant of Letters of Administration in terms of Sections 232 & 26 of the Indian Succession Act based on the Will

dated 16.6.2000. In that proceedings, the present Application has been filed by one K. Karthik and K. Deepak, S/o Kalaivanan, represented by

the power of Attorney, Kalaivanan. They want to implead themselves in the said proceedings.

In the Affidavit filed in support of this Application, by the clearly Power of Attorney on behalf of the two Applicants, he clearly states that they

are third parties to the original Petition. Insofar as the estate of late P.D. Rajagopalan, deceased is concerned, all that the Applicants in the implead

Application claim is that they were treated by the deceased P.D. Rajagopalan as his own grandsons and he did not have contact with any blood

relations and by a registered Will dated 12.11.1977, the said Rajagopalan bequeathed the said property in favour of K. Nalini-mother of the

Applicants. Thereafter, by two gift Settlement Deeds dated 24.8.2000 & 25.8.2000, it is Stated that P.D. Rajagopalan gifted/settled half share

undivided share of the property in favour of the 1st Petitioner and other half share in favour of the 2nd Petitioner and the said Settlement Deeds are

registered as Nos. 2555/2000 & 3556/2000 at Kodambakkam Sub-Registrar Office. It is further pleaded that in the Gift Settlement Deeds, the

said Late Rajagopalan revoked his registered Will dated 12.7.1977 registered in favour of Nalini and the possession of the property was handed

over to the Applicants. It is not in dispute that P.D. Rajagopalan died on 6.11.2000 at the residence of the First Petitioner and the last rites were

performed by the First Petitioner. It is the further claim of the Applicants that they filed O.S. No. 866/02 on the file of the City Civil Court for

permanent injunction and there is also an Interim Order in favour of the Applicants, which has been made absolute.

The cause of action for filing the present Application is as follows:

I submit that during trial in the abovesaid Suit, the Applicants herein came to know that after the death of Mr. P.D. Rajagopalan, the First

Respondent herein (Petitioner in the above O.P. No. 842 of 2012) has forged Mr. P.D. Rajagopalan''s signature and has created a Will, as if he

has bequeathed the abovesaid property in her favour.

On enquiries I have come to know that the First Respondent herein filed the above O.P. No. 842 of 2012 seeking grant of Letters of

Administration with respect of a Will, alleged to have been executed by the abovesaid P.D. Rajagopalan on 16.6.2000 in her favour bequeathing

the abovesaid property in her favour.

1 submit that the Will dated 16.6.2000 in respect of which the First Respondent herein has applied for Letters of Administration, is not a

genuine one. 1 submit that the said Will dated 16.6.2000 is a forged one. Therefore, the above O.P. No. 842 of 2012 is liable to be dismissed.

I submit that under the facts and circumstances stated above, being absolute owners of the property covered under the alleged Will, the

Applicants herein are proper and necessary parties to the above O.P. No. 842 of 2012. It is therefore just, proper and necessary that the

Applicants herein be impleaded as Respondents Nos. 5 & 6 in the above O.P. No. 842 of 2012 as otherwise they will be put to irreparable loss

and injury.

Therefore, the present Application is filed praying to implead the Petitioner in the Original Petition.

This is resisted by the Respondent herein and the Petitioner in the Original Petition, who has filed a detailed Counter, which of course, upto

para-18 is not relevant for repudiating the claim on facts which is not required for the disposal of the present Application. Para-19 of the Counter

Affidavit is relied upon by K.V. Babu, learned Counsel for the Respondent that no caveatable interest is there for the impleading Applicants and,

therefore, the Application has to be rejected. Learned Counsel for the Respondent relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanwarjit

Singh Dhillon Vs. Hardyal Singh Dhillon and Others, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court, while relying upon its earlier decision in Chiranjilal

Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through Lrs. Vs. Jasjit Singh and Others, , and pleaded that in a probate, the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under the

Indian Succession Act is not competent to determine the question of title to the Suit property and for other issues relating to title. In the said

decision, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

In Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through Lrs. Vs. Jasjit Singh and Others, , this Court while upholding the above views and following

the earlier decisions of this Court as well as of other High Courts in India observed in Paragraph 15 at page 515 which runs as under:

In Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Smt. Kamla Devi this Court held that the Court of probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the

document put forward as the last Will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at

the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the

purview of the Probate Court. Therefore, the only issue in a Probate proceeding relates to the genuineness and due execution of the Will and the

Court itself is under duty to determine it and perverse the original Will in its custody. The Succession Act is a self-contained code insofar as the

question of making an Application for probate, grant or refusal of probate or an Appeal carried against the decision of the Probate Court. This is

clearly manifested in the fascicule of the provisions of the Act. The Probate proceedings shall be conducted by the Probate Court in the manner

prescribed in the Act and in no other ways. The grant of probate with a copy of the Will annexed establishes conclusively as to the appointment of

the Executor and the valid execution of the Will. Thus, it does no more than establish the factum of the Will and the legal character of the Executor.

Probate Court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself.

(Emphasis supplied)

In view of the above binding precedent, the present Application filed by the implead Applicants challenging the title cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, this implead Application is dismissed.