The Delhi High Court recently brought closure to a case over the Will of late Raja Pratap Bhan Prakash Singh that had remained pending before courts for 38 years [Smt V Prabha v The State and Ors].
In an order passed on November 12, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that during the pendency of the case, most of the original parties died and numerous lawyers changed and that the delay in deciding the matter exemplified the friction that threatens to erode the public’s faith in the justice delivery system.
"The delay, upon perusal of the case record, can be attributed to various factors, including the conduct of the parties. Such delay not only clogs the justice delivery system, but also drags the parties into protracted litigation. It also gives scope for administrative lapses, ultimately, to the detriment of litigants themselves. Therefore, it is in the best interests of all stakeholders of the judicial system to make their best endeavour towards speedy disposal of their cases,” the Court observed.
It stressed that the justice delivery system functions on mutual trust between the Bar, the Bench and the parties.
"Each stakeholder, the litigant, the counsel, and the Court, bear a shared responsibility towards upholding its integrity. Any lapse diminishes confidence in the system as a whole," the Court said.
The petition, originally filed in 1987 by V Prabha under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, sought probate for a Will executed on November 4, 1985, by the late Raja Pratap Bhan Prakash Singh, a former Taluqdar (landowner and tax collector) and Jagirdar (feudal lord) from Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. The plea was later converted into one for the grant of letters of administration of the Will.
Singh passed away just three days after executing the Will, which bequeathed several self-acquired properties to five beneficiaries, including Prabha and her family members, who took care of the late Raja after his separation from his own family.
However, his widow, Savita Kumari, and her sons challenged the Will, alleging it was executed under suspicious circumstances when the testator was terminally ill and mentally unsound. They further argued that the Will involved ancestral properties that could not be validly transferred.
After considering the case, the High Court ruled that the fact that the natural legal heirs have been excluded from inheritance in the Will also cannot be deemed to be suspicious, especially because the averments in the Will give a detailed explanation of the circumstances under for their exclusion.
“It is not a case of unexplained silence in relation to the exclusion of the natural legal heirs, as the Will is self-explanatory. The testator has recorded matrimonial discords that he had with his wife, and that his children were hostile and disaffectionate towards him. In fact, it is stated therein that he had received life threats on various occasions, and consequently, he had moved away from his family. It is stated in the Will that the family of the original petitioner took care of him subsequent to his separation from respondents no. 2 to 4 [Raja’s family],” the Court noted.
Further, it observed that the Will was “validly executed” in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and that there was no credible evidence to suggest coercion or manipulation by the petitioners.
Therefore, the Bench ordered that a letter of administration in respect of the Will be issued for all the bequeathed properties in favour of the petitioners.
Advocates Dr Meenakshi Kalra, SN Kalra, Gade Meghana, Kamal, Anjali Chaudhary and Sakshi Gupta represented the petitioners.
The respondents were represented through advocates Rishi Matoliya, Achal Singh Bule and Francesca Kapur.
Panel Counsel Avni Singh appeared for the State.
[Read Judgment]