Jia Lal Khanna v. Jawahar Lal Khann

order which determines the right and not the ministerial reflection thereof.

¶20Jia Lai Khanna has clearlyadmitted,and in any case if he seeks inheritance under the Will dated 01.05.1973, that the bequest by his father gives one-third share to his brother Jawahar Lai Khanna.

¶21The wrongly worded instrument on which the Letters of Administration have been scribed does not confer and cannot conferexclusiverights of ownershipin favourofJia Page8of9 Lai Khanna. Merely because, armed with a wrongly worded instrumentdrawn up, he received^66,000/-pursuantto order dated 01.09.1990would have no effect. That apart, his status would be that of a trustee inasmuch as it is the Will dated

01.05.1973 which has to govern the manner of administration of the estate of late Sh.Panna Lai Khanna.

¶22The affidavitEx.PW-l/Dlonly recognizesthatJia Lai Khanna spent money to raise a construction on property (9^ No.lll.B/31 Lajpat Nagar. Thus, the affidavit would have no W bearingwith respectto propertyNo.XIII/2407/15New Teliwara. Even as regards the propertyat Lajpat Nagar, it not being in dispute that the perpetual leasehold rights under L&DO were in the name of Panna Lai Khanna, merely because he spent money on constructing a building thereon, would not make him the owner of the land in any case. He having joined the two other brothers in seeking Letters of Administrationon the strengthof the Will dated 01.05.1973has to remain bound by the admissionsmade by him in the petitionfiled. ^

¶23We dismiss the appeal with costs in sum of ^25,000/- imposed upon the appellant and in favour of the respondents No.1(a) and 1(b). T-r (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE (S^TGARG) JUDGE DECEMBER 23, 2011 // Ar7c^c • Page9of9 -fl'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ludament Reserved On: December 19. 2011 ludament Delivered On: December23. 2011 + RFA(OS) 70/2009 JIA LAL KHANNA Appellant Through: Appellant in person. versus JAWAHAR LAL KHANNA (SINCE DECEASED) THRU LRs ....Respondents Through: Mr.S.C.Singhal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG PRADEEP NANDRAIOG.J. 1. A stitch in time saves nine. This idiom would be the apt preamble to the instant decision. 2. Astitch left unstitched in the year 1990 has led to a litigation,between brothers spanning 21 years. It all began, when a petition under Section 278 of The Indian Succession Act with Will annexed, was filed in the year 1976 praying that: 'Letters ofAdministration of the Estate ofSh.Panna Lai Khanna with the Wiiiannexed be granted to the petitioners'. 3. Highlighting that prayer refers to 'petitioners'not 'petitioner', we note that in the memo of petition seeking Letters of Administration with Will annexed, the cause title was typed as under:- Page1 of9 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. ••J "IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICTJUDGE DELHI In Re:- The Estate of Shh Panna Lal Khanna, deceased. Original Petition No. of 1976 In Re:- 1. S/Shri Jia Lal Jawahar Lal, and Din Dayai Sons of Late Shri Panna Lal Khanna, residents of III.B/31 Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi —Petitioners Versus ^tate —Respondent" 4- The prayer clause may now be noted. It reads as under:- "It is, prayed that the Letters of Administration of the Estate of Shri Panna Lal Khanna with the Will annexed be granted to the petitioners. 1. Jia Lal 2. Jawahar Lal 3. Din Dayal Petitioners through Advocate" 'n the petition it was pleaded that late Shri Panna Lal Khanna had died on 29.07.1975and during his lifetimehad executed a Will dated 01.05.1973, as per which his wife Smt.Bishan Devi was a legatee during her lifetime and thereafter, of the nine sons and one daughter of Panna Lal Khanna, property bearing No.lll.B/31 Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and property bearing No.XIII/2407/15,New Teliwara,Delhi was a devolved upon the petitioners i.e. Jia Lai Khanna, Din Dayal Khanna and Jawahar Lai Khanna. 6. The Will Ex.PW-1/1 was probated as per order Ex.PW-1/2 dated 14.04.1980. The concluding portion reads as unden- "8. I consequently accept this petition and direct the letters of administration, with a copy of will annexed, in respect of the immovable properties mentioned at Nos.l and in annexure 'A' left by the deceased Shri Panna Lai Khanna, be issued in favour of the petitioners subject to their filing the estate duty clearance certificate, valuation of the property left by the deceased in the form prescribed by law, paying court-fees thereon and executing the requisite administrationbond with one surety engaging for the due collection,getting in and administeringthe estate of the deceased." 7. Unfortunately,the three brothers,Jia Lai, Jawahar Lai and Din Dayal took theirown sweettime in completingthe necessary formalities i.e. obtaining a valuation report for the property and thereafter purchase stamp paper of adequate value on which the instrument of Letter of Administrationhad to be scribed. It was only in May 1990 that the needful was done. It is at this stage that had a stitch been stitchedin time, the parties would have saved nine. Misled by the memo of parties in the petition seeking Letters of Administration where, as noted herein above, after typing the numeral '1', names of three persons were typed as petitioners; and to a hasty person who would not bother to read beyond the name of the first petitionerand proceed on the assumption that the next name typed is that of the father, on the stamp papers filed, the instrument of 'GRANTOFLETTERSOFADMINISTRATIONUNDERSECTION290 Page3of9 OF THEINDIANSUCCESSIONACT\NdiS drawn up and signed by tine tlien learned District Judge, Delhi; and with reference to t