FAO(OS)/68/2024 of MEENAKSHI GUPTA AND ANR . Vs THE STATE AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+FAO(OS)68/2024&CMAPPL.28175/2024,CMAPPL.28176/202428176/2024

MEENAKSHI GUPTA AND ANR .

..... AppellantsThrough:Mr. Wills Mathews, Mr. Anil KumarShukla, Ms. Rashmi Sahu and Mr.Raghv Arora, Advs.Shukla, Ms. Rashmi Sahu and Mr.Raghv Arora, Advs.

versus

THE STATE AND ORS..... Respondents

Through:

Mr.AnupamSrivastava,ASC,GNCTD with Mr. Deepak Jain, Adv.Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Mr. Attin ShankarRastogi, Mr. Shivkant Arora, Mr.Adil Vasudeva, Mr. Aman Kapoorand Mr. Kartikeya Dumani, Advs forR-2 to R-9.GNCTD with Mr. Deepak Jain, Adv.Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Mr. Attin ShankarRastogi, Mr. Shivkant Arora, Mr.Adil Vasudeva, Mr. Aman Kapoorand Mr. Kartikeya Dumani, Advs forR-2 to R-9.

Date of Decision: 13[th]May, 2024

CORAM:HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)

1.Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 09[th]February, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court inTest. Case 20/2022, whereby the probate of will dated 21[st]June, 2017 ofLate Ms. Susheila Chaudhary was granted to the parties, while holding that

Signature Not Verified

there is an intention to divide the consideration from the sale of the propertyinto seven shares. The appellants are respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the probatepetition and sisters of the testator.

2.Learned counsel for the appellants states that the will is admitted byall parties and the dispute is limited to its interpretation. He states that theimpugned order has been passed on the basis that there is serial numberseven (7) in the list of beneficiaries. He points out that the will does not haveany serial number seven (7). He states that there are only six (6) classes ofbeneficiaries, sixth being the nephews of the Testator. He contends that theimpugned order is against the letter and spirit of the will. He states that theimpugned order has the effect of diluting the share of the appellants underthe 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 thefollowing Seven persons.following Seven persons.

1.Aunila shaw _Sister

2.Deepa Benj amin _ Sister

3.Meenakshi Gupta _ Sister

4.Kusmanjali Wilson _ Sister

5.Prem Paul Chaudhry’s _ 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 thesale proceeds will be divided amongst seven (7) persons. Secondly, the Willunder Serial No.6 makes bequest in favour of the nephews and niece withthe shares of each of the nephew and niece specified separately and

Signature Not Verified

distinctly. The nephews, Mr.Sanjay Chaudhary and Mr.Sandeep Chaudhuryare the children of Mr.Sudesh Chowdhuary the deceased brother of thetestatrix. Mr.Sanjay and Mr.Sandeep together descend from commonancestor and form part of single family. The assignment of shares of 2/3[rd]and 1/3[rd]in the Will to each of them respectively is intended to allot one (1)share to the said two nephews between themselves. Similarly, Mr.SameerChaudhury and Ms.Ashima Kumar are children of Mr.Rajinder PalChowdhuary the deceased brother of the testatrix and the assignment ofshares of 2/3[rd]and 1/3[rd]in the Will to each of them respectively is intendedto allot one (1) share to the nephew and niece between themselves, as theytoo form part of the single family. Consequently, the learned Single Judge’sreasoning that the will does not show or reflect any intention to divide onlyone (1) share amongst the four nephews and niece is correct.5.Accordingly, the impugned order calls for no interference and theappeal is dismissed.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

MAY 13, 2024N.Khanna