$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TEST.CAS. 4/2004 ANIL BHALLA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shaunak Kashyap, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhati, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R % 18.07.2016 IA No.8260/2016 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. IA No.8259/2016 (of Mr. Abhijeet Bhalla under Order I Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to intervene and clarification of the order dated 1st May, 2012) 3. This testamentary case was disposed of along with CS(OS) No.273/2002 vide judgment dated 22nd November, 2010 holding that the suit property being property no.7, Southern Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi stood partitioned vide memorandum of family settlement Ex.PW1/3 and therefore the suit for partition afresh was not maintainable and granting probate of the Will dated 22nd October, 1989 Ex.PW1/2 to Mr. Anil Bhalla, Executor under the Will. 4. FAO(OS) No.78/2012 and RFA(OS) No.19/2012 preferred thereagainst were dismissed as withdrawn on 22nd February, 2012 with liberty to appellant Atul Bhalla (respondent in the testamentary case) to apply for review. TEST.CAS. 4/2004 Page 1 of 3 5. The review petition preferred, being Review Petition No.260/2016 in CS(OS) No.273/2002 and Testamentary Case No.4/2004 was disposed of vide order dated 1st May, 2012 with certain clarifications. 6. FAO (OS) No.402/2012 and RFA (OS) No.72/2012 again preferred by Atul Bhalla were dismissed vide order dated 31st August, 2012. 7. This application has been made by son of Anil Bhalla claiming that under the Will of which probate has been granted, after the demise of Mrs. Veena Sethi, to whom a life-estate has been given under the Will, the possession of the property in her occupation / possession has to come to the share of the applicant Abhijeet Bhalla and in the order dated 1st May, 2012 on the review petition it has been erroneously recorded that the said portion would go in equal shares to the litigating parties i.e. Atul Bhalla and Anil Bhalla. 8. It is further the contention of the counsel for the applicant Abhijeet Bhalla that in the judgment dated 22nd November, 2010 it has been correctly recorded that after Mrs. Veena Sethi, it has to go to applicant Abhijeet Bhalla but in the order aforesaid in the review petition it has been wrongly so recorded. 9. As aforesaid, the suit for partition was dismissed and probate of the Will granted. The judgment of grant of a probate, though a judgment in rem declares only the document to be the last validly executed Will of the deceased and does not decide the title to the property or inter se disputes between those claiming under the Will. 10. The applicant Abhijeet Bhalla was admittedly not a party to the proceedings and the question of his thus being bound by anything contained TEST.CAS. 4/2004 Page 2 of 3 in the judgments or orders therein, save to the extent of the document being the last validly executed Will of Smt. Chandra Kanta Bhalla, does not arise. 11. If the applicant Abhijeet Bhalla wants to agitate any rights in the property, the same will have to be done in independent proceeding(s) and the application as is filed is not maintainable and is dismissed. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 18, 2016 ‘gsr’.. TEST.CAS. 4/2004 Page 3 of 3