IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7321 of 2010 1. Basudeo Singh S/O Jamun Singh 2. Rajeev Kumar Singh S/O Dwarika Singh R/O Vill Haribanshpur, P.S.Bhagwanpur, Distt-Vaishali 3. Chinta Devi W/O Late Ramesh Singh R/O Vill Haribanshpur, P.S.Bhagwanpur, Distt-Vaishali Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Makhan Prasad Singh Null R/O Vill Sahjadpur Andar Kila, P.O.& P.S. Hajipur, Distt-Vaishali 3. Mishri Lal Singh 4. Jawahar Singh Serial No. 2 to 4 are sons of Sheo Chandra Singh, resident of village-Sahjadpur Andar Kila, p.O. & P.S.-Hajipur, District- Vaishali. ----------------- 02/ 28.09.2011 Heard Mr. Sri Nandan Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Shatrughan Pandey, Assisting counsel to S.C. 23 for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.1.2010 passed in Probate Case No. 14 of 2001 by the Additional District Judge II, Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby the case of the petitioner for being added as a party in the Probate Case has been rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the respondent no. 2 pursuant to a permission granted by the consolidation authority on 19.1.1989 has executed a deed of gift in favour of the petitioner on 31.1.1989. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter he came in the possession of the said property bearing khata no. 205, R.S. Plot No. 1731 having an area of 38 decimals, R.S. Plot Nos. 1443 having an area of 8 decimals and 1685 having an area of 6 decimals respectively, situated in village- 2 Haribanshpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur in the district of Vaishali. It is the further case of the petitioner that the mother of the respondent no. 2 Ram Rati Devi filed a Title Suit No. 239 of 1989 seeking a declaration that the gift deed dated 31.1.1989 be declared forged and fabricated. It is the further case of the petitioner that the mother of the respondent no. 2 died during the pendency of the title suit on 28.8.2001. It is the further case of the petitioner that by reason of the death of the mother of the respondent no. 2 the suit abated on 5.7.2002 and against which order the respondent no. 2 has preferred an appeal the details of which are not known to the petitioner. It so appears that a will was executed by the mother in favour of the respondent no. 2 on 25.5.2001 and for which he instituted a probate case giving rise to Probate Case No. 14 of 2001. It is also not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner had instituted a criminal case against the petitioner and in which the deed of gift was seized and the signature/L.T.I. of the executant late Phirangee Bhagat, the father of the petitioner was compared by an expert who opined that the signature in question was not that of late Phirangee Bhagat and as a consequence whereof the petitioner was convicted in the criminal case on 15.9.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Court and which is pending. It is contended that whether or not the deed of gift was forged would be subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceeding which is yet at its appellate stage before this Court and thus the petitioner deriving its right by virtue of the gift deed was fully entitled to intervene in the probate case. The claim having been 3 rejected, hence the present writ petition. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and considering the materials on record of the proceedings as well as the order impugned, it is manifest that the gift deed dated 31.1.1989 which is the sole basis of the petitioner in seeking impleadment in the probate case, itself has been found to be forged by the trial court in the criminal case instituted by the late mother of the respondent no. 2. The basis for intervening in the probate case itself having found to be forged leading to an order of conviction, no right accrues to the petitioner to intervene in the probate case. The prayer of the petitioner is misconceived and being devoid of merit was rightly rejected by the court below and which order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)