- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
B. Venkataraman v. The State Nct Of Delhi
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking grant of probate of a Will dated 10.05.2011 executed by Late Lakshi Balasubramanian, the appellant's mother. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 19.12.2014, declined to grant probate and instead granted Letters of Administration in favor of the appellant. The rationale for this was that no executor was named in the Will, and only a named executor can be granted probate under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The appellant challenged this decision by filing an appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether probate can be granted to the appellant who is a beneficiary under the Will but was not named as an executor.
- Whether the learned Single Judge erred in holding that there was no named executor in the Will, thereby denying probate.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the impugned order and noted that the learned Single Judge found no opposition from the public or other legal heirs and was otherwise satisfied that the case was fit for probate. However, the Single Judge refused probate solely because the appellant was not named as the executor. Upon review, the court found this to be a factual error, as the Will explicitly appointed the appellant as the executor: "I hereby appoint my eldest son Shri B. Venkatraman as the Executor under this Will." The court emphasized that the only impediment to granting probate was the erroneous finding regarding the executor's appointment. Correcting this factual mistake, the court set aside the impugned order and granted probate subject to the appellant fulfilling all procedural requirements, including payment of stamp duty.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is allowed.
The court set aside the order granting Letters of Administration and instead granted probate of the Will to the appellant. The appellant must complete all requisite formalities. This decision corrects the factual error made by the Single Judge but does not establish any new legal precedent beyond the application of existing statutory provisions.
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 2397/2015
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
FAO (OS) 71/2015
1. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the impugned order dated 19.12.2014 whereby the learned Single Judge has granted Letters of Administration in favour of the appellant instead of granting probate. The appellant has moved a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate of the Will dated 10.05.2011 executed by Late Lakshi Balasubramanian (appellant's mother). The only reason for non-grant of probate and for grant of the Letters of Administration in favour of the appellant was indicated in paragraph 5 of the impugned order. The same reads as under:-
“As stated above, none from the general public has come forward to oppose the petition. Rather both the other legal heirs of the deceased Lakshi Balasubramanian have supported the petition. However, as per the provision of Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, probate of the Will can be granted only to the named executor of the Will. In the instant case, the petitioner is only a beneficiary under the Will and nobody has been appointed as the executor of the Will. Thus, though probate of the Will cannot be granted to the petitioner, on the other hand, I do not find any impediment in grant of Letters of Administration in respect of Property No. B-84, Gulmohar Park, Journalists Colony, New Delhi Ex. PW1/1 annexed to the Will to the petitioner.”
2. On going through the above extract, it is evident that according to the learned Single Judge the appellant was only a beneficiary under the Will and “nobody had been appointed as the executor of the Will”. This observation of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the record. We have seen the copy of the Will (Ex.PW1/1). In the said Will, it is specifically stated as under:-
“I hereby appoint my eldest son Shri B. Venkatraman as the Executor under this Will.”
3. It is obvious that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in recording that there is no named executor in the Will.
4. The only reason for not granting the probate to the appellant was that he was not named as an executor. In all other aspects, the learned Single Judge was satisfied that it was a fit case for grant of probate. Since the learned Single Judge has committed a factual error, which we have pointed out above, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the Testamentary Case No. 72/2013. Probate is granted subject to the appellant's completing all the requisite formalities including payment of stamp duty.
5. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Alert