MEENAKSHI GUPTA AND ANR . vs THE STATE AND ORS
$~100.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 68/2024 & CM APPL. 28175/2024, CM APPL. 28176/2024
MEENAKSHI GUPTA AND ANR . ….. Appellants
Through: Mr. Wills Mathews, Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla, Ms. Rashmi Sahu and Mr. Raghv Arora, Advs.
versus
THE STATE AND ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Deepak Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Mr. Shivkant Arora, Mr. Adil Vasudeva, Mr. Aman Kapoor and Mr. Kartikeya Dumani, Advs for R-2 to R-9.
% Date of Decision: 13th May, 2024
CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 09th
February, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
Test. Case 20/2022, whereby the probate of will dated 21st June, 2017 of
Late Ms. Susheila Chaudhary was granted to the parties, while holding that
FAO(OS) 68/2024 Page 1 of 3
there is an intention to divide the consideration from the sale of the property into seven shares. The appellants are respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the probate petition and sisters of the testator.
2.
Learned counsel for the appellants states that the will is admitted by all parties and the dispute is limited to its interpretation. He states that the impugned order has been passed on the basis that there is a serial number seven (7) in the list of beneficiaries. He points out that the will does not have any serial number seven (7). He states that there are only six (6) classes of beneficiaries, sixth being the nephews of the Testator. He contends that the impugned order is against the letter and spirit of the will. He states that the impugned order has the effect of diluting the share of the appellants under the will.
3.
Since, considerable emphasis has been laid on the interpretation of the will, the relevant portion of the Will is reproduced hereinbelow:
(I) house Money will be divided proportionately among the following Seven persons.
1.
Aunila shaw _Sister
2.
Deepa Benj amin _ Sister
3.
Meenakshi Gupta _ Sister
4.
Kusmanjali Wilson _ Sister
5.
Prem Paul Chaudhrys _ grand children
6.
Nephews _ Sanjay Chaudhary 2/3 Sandeep Chaudhary 1/3 Sameer Chauhdary 2/3, Ashima Kumar 1/3
4. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the will explicitly states that the sale proceeds will be divided amongst seven (7) persons. Secondly, the Will under Serial No.6 makes a bequest in favour of the nephews and niece with the shares of each of the nephew and niece specified separately and
FAO(OS) 68/2024 Page 2 of 3
distinctly. The nephews, Mr.Sanjay Chaudhary and Mr.Sandeep Chaudhury are the children of Mr.Sudesh Chowdhuary the deceased brother of the testatrix. Mr.Sanjay and Mr.Sandeep together descend from a common ancestor and form part of a single family. The assignment of shares of 2/3rd and 1/3rd in the Will to each of them respectively is intended to allot one (1) share to the said two nephews between themselves. Similarly, Mr.Sameer Chaudhury and Ms.Ashima Kumar are children of Mr.Rajinder Pal Chowdhuary the deceased brother of the testatrix and the assignment of shares of 2/3rd and 1/3rd in the Will to each of them respectively is intended to allot one (1) share to the nephew and niece between themselves, as they too form part of the single family. Consequently, the learned Single Judges reasoning that the will does not show or reflect any intention to divide only one (1) share amongst the four nephews and niece is correct.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order calls for no interference and the appeal is dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J MAY 13, 2024
N.Khanna
FAO(OS) 68/2024 Page 3 of 3