The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi has granted probate of a will dated April 7, 2008, executed by Late Sitaram Lohia in favor of the petitioner Biren Poddar, who was appointed as executor under the will. The Court observed that no impediment existed in granting probate as the will was duly executed and attested in accordance with law, and the testator had sound mind at the time of its execution.
The case arose from a probate application filed in 2012 under Section 276 read with Section 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking probate of Late Sitaram Lohia’s will dated April 7, 2008. Sitaram Lohia died on April 21, 2008, leaving behind the properties within the jurisdiction of the Court as well as within the jurisdiction of Laxmangarh, District Sikar in the State of Rajasthan and in New Delhi, valued at Rs. 3, 13, 00,000. The will appointed Late Binod Poddar and Biren Poddar as executors, but following Binod Poddar’s death during the proceedings, Biren Poddar was substituted as the sole executor.
The Court directed extensive citation procedures including public notices at conspicuous places in the District of Ranchi, New Delhi, Sikar, Rajasthan, and specifically at such public places in the locality within which the immovable property of the Testator lies. The citation also included some conspicuous part of the Court House, offices of Collectors of the Districts and directed that it should also be published through paper publication in two national editions. Special citation was also issued to the persons named in paragraph 10 of the petition. The comprehensive citation process faced several challenges with unserved notices, particularly to parties in Guwahati, which required fresh service attempts. The case was finally admitted on February 28, 2020, after completion of all citation formalities.
The will made specific bequests including half share of a New Delhi flat to daughter-in-law Alka Lohia, agricultural land along with a godown in Ranchi to Samir Lohia, a flat in Radium Court to Rinkoo Lohia, and ancestral haveli in Rajasthan to son Sanjay Lohia. The petitioner Biren Poddar examined as PW-1, confirmed his presence during will execution and identified the testator’s left thumb impression, while Suraj Singh appeared as PW-2 identified his deceased father’s signature as attesting witness. All legal heirs filed written statements supporting the grant of probate to the petitioner.
Accordingly, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, relying on Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Smt. Kamta Devi, reported in (1953) 1 SCC 295: AIR 1954 SC 280 emphasised that the Court of probate is only concerned with the question of 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 the testator had a sound disposing mind. It further held that the question of whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the purview of the probate Court. Therefore, in view of the above, the Court observed that the Will dated 07.04.2008 executed by late Sitaram Lohia with respect to the property described therein was allowed to be probated in favour of the petitioner, who was the executor of the Will and would act in terms of the Will.
Appearances:
For Petitioner: Mr. Rohitasya Roy, Mr. Anupam Anand
For Opposite Parties: Mr. Vikas Pandey
