Law: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)

Section: 283 (1) (c)

  Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), S. 283 (1) (c)-Probate pro ceedings-Persons claiming interest in property through deceased are persons to be affected by grant of probate---Persons not claiming property through deceased---Cannot claim to be party to such proceedings.             Kashi Nath Singh v. Dulhin Gulzari Kuer A I R 1941 Pat. 475; Janki Saran Shahi v. Rambahadur Sahi and another A I R 1932 Pat. 343; Chotoo Mahton and another v. Mt. Lachmi Kuer A I R 1930 Pat. 354 and Biraj Nath De and another v. Chander Mohan Banerji 19 All. 458 cited. 20 I C 342 and Pirojshah Bikhaji and others v. Pestonji Mer wanji I L R 34 Born. 459 ref. JUDGMENT A. S. CHOWDHURY, J.---This revisional application calls in question an order made by the District Judge of Rangpur, on 4-5-1967, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 43 of 1966, allowing the Deputy Commissioner of that District to be made a party in a proceeding under section 283 of the Succession Act. One Sital Mall died, it is alleged, after executing a will in favour of some of the beneficiaries including the petitioner who instituted the present proceeding for obtaining a probate of the said will. The Deputy Commissioner of Rangpur how ever, filed an application seeking to be a party in the said proceeding and objected to the granting of probate. One of the grounds taken by the Deputy Commissioner in the said petition is as follows: "That the properties described in the petition did not belong to Sital Mall but to Seth Ottan Mall who employed Sital Mall to look after the properties when he (Seth Ottan Mall) left for India immediately before Independence in 1947 leaving the properties which are subject-matter of this case along with other immense properties to his care and supervision under power-of-attorney executed by Seth Ottan Mall. In the last R. S. operation some entries have falsely been created in favour of Sital Mall with respect to some properties but there is no basis for those entries which cannot create any interest in favour of Sital Mall." It will, therefore, be seen that the Deputy Commissioner challenges the ownership of Sital Mall in respect of…