IffitB SSS-, .lljil ^ s' : a ^ Singte Sench IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB AT BILASPUR, CHHAmSGARH W.P^NO, ^-^A^^ /200J. ^ ...•••' v^M^ >** ^•^ ^'<^'.A 'y..< ^w ..•••" A®'^•< ,.-^ Vs Gayatri Devi Gupta i» W/o Naresh Gupta, Aged about 35 years, R/o Su-mor Square, Near P.K. School, Gayata~i Provision Store, Riwa ( M.P.). Rajendra Kuiuar Gupta alias Munna, S/o Sadan Lal Gupta, Aged about 40 years, R/o Kududand near water tank, BUaspur (C.G.). 2. Bank of Maharashtra through Branch Manager Masanganj, Bilaspur. 3. Central Bank of India through Branch Manager Main branch Near Manohar Talkies, Bilaspur ( C.G.). 4. The AUahabad Bank through Branch Manager near bus stand Bilaspur ( C.G.). fMi'i mm XI-HG—78 ^WW (faW^i '3'Sf •<||t||l'iq, ®t)|.y<|S)fsi<-ll+l^< ^......^4,.ts>o,.4^a^l 311^1 TPHT (1<=lij«l<(I) SII^T ^T ft-ll'* ^^ SftS^ Sh-Miqi 'FRIWSft^ sn^I 23-12-2004 On Q mention being made, the jase is taken up for hearing. 5hri 6autam Bhaduri, counsel for •Hie petitioner. By this writ petition filed Constitution of India the petitioijier has questioned •the legality, propriety and correctness of the o^ •rfie leamed 3 Civil Judge, Class-I) rejected Itie objections raised by fhe petitioner herein Thct without obtainin9 th®probate, respondent tpo.l herein is not entitied for the succession certificate based on executed in his fnyour. I have heard learned couns^l for tke petitioner on admission and perused The impugned order. ^[<il^41l TTH^ ^f 'fe1^ <{^T^R ^siRprsn^i under Article 226/227 of the •der dated 27-10-2004 passed by whereby tearned Civil Judge has |the Wiil alieged to haye been reiicnce on the jud9ment of the 1-li^h Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Bhaiyalal V. Kashi Bai ^ind another reported in 2001 (l) M.P.L.J. 429 rejected the objecti|)ns raised by the pstitioner hepein Learned Civil Judge while ptacing on the ground that since prope bsqueathed by The Wili in questionl or Calcutta, therefore, provision^ of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are not applic<)ible in 1+iis case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of SBjLpf Constitution BencH 'ty in question uuhich has been is not situated in Madras, Bombay of the HO"'I3I®^Pe?<Court B''_1^>e_ BRKBiflfi. XI-HG—78 TST •^WM^, ©tily'ifi,fsidiy^< 311^1'T^T (' p) sn^r w Wi4i ^TSTT-SH^I s»i*ii<=h Vf?3 S^l ._ Q .__ <¥>I^<?Ttft-T'^r^ ^ T^^ <f^T^K ^SifiiH 3)1^1 matter af Bhau ftam V. Saij Nath^ Singh and others reporTed in <4IR 1962 Supreme Court 1476 impugr|ed order is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In this connection, if we l<^ok into the provisions of Sections 57-(a) ond 213 of The Indian Succejssion AcT, 1925, conjoint reading of bo1+) the Sections makes it clear fhait -the provision oyplies to all Wills made within the territorit Lieutenant ©overnor of Benga! ^s of fiovernment of Bengal or [»r within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdictioi} of the Hi9h Courts of judicature at Madras ond Bombay. If aWil| is executed by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina within such territ^ries or with respect to property situated in those territories it is ijiecessary •t'o obtain the probate emd Civi! Court has no jurisdiction Tij) adjudicate upon the factum ond validity cf the Wil!. Fur-riier read'ii^g of Sub-section (2) of Section 213 makes it clear that the section ap(>ties with respect to Wills which are of the ctass spscified in clause (b 1 of section 57. Therefore, the bar created by sub-section (1) of sec-^on 213 that no right os executor or legatee can be established in anyjCourt of Justice, unless a court of competent jurisdiction in India ha^ gran'ted probate of the Will under which The right is claimed, or hcfs granted letters of administration with the Will or witii a copy of an authenticated copy of the Wilt anrjexed (^>plies only to those cajtegories of persons as mentioned in ;^y^--::Ei"'%" •saF XI-HC—78 ?^ ^rpTRrq, '^TRTTC, 1^ira3< 31^?F'q^i'(' p) 35RSr^i! wn»Ti^i WifeP^t 'ciitRff i[ •fe<^ifsi^ ciause (a) and properties mention^d in clcuse (b) of section 57 of ths Act. Therefore, the succession bertifica-te on the basis of •t+ie Will has been sought r%gardin9 the pr^operty situated at Bilaspur, ss such in view of ciause (a) of 5ection 5f and sub-section (2) of SecTion 213 of the Indian Succession Act, i1^ is necessary for respondent No.l herein to obtain the probate beforje ciaiming right based on the Will. Counsel for The petitioner jFurther submitt-ed that tearned Civil Judge imposed cost of fts.3,000/ has been imposed without ony just|fication. Having heard leamed eoun^ which is very exorbitont and same el for the petitioner, request made by iearned counsel for -riie p^titioner appears to be just and reasonable, therefore, looking to from Rs.3,000/- to fts.500/-. With the above observation the circumstances, cost is reduced the petition is dismissed. ^•dl- L.C. Bhadoo Judge