Renu Brij Vs. State and ors

Renu Brij vs State and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 06, 2012

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/955997

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/955997
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Kailash Gambhir
Decided On: Dec 06, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Renu Brij

Respondent

State and ors

Excerpt

.....by the middlesex surrogate court, new jersey, usa.4. i have heard the counsel for the petitioner and examined the documents placed on record.5. petitioner has filed his evidence by way of his affidavit and the affidavits of the two attesting witnesses to the will who testified that the facts narrated in the petition are true and correct. the written statement averring no objection to the contents of the petition is filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 in which they clearly state that they admit the 2 of 3 petition and have no objection if the probate is granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the will dated 12.3.2009 executed by late sh. rusibrij in respect of his estate (both movable and immovable) situated in india. they also aver in the written statement that this no objection to the probate is executed by them with their free will and consent without any force, coercion or undue influence from any corner whatsoever.6. in the absence of any opposition to the petition and in view of the deposition by way of affidavits of the petitioners witnesses, which is unrebutted, the averments made in the petition stands proved.7. on perusal of the certified copy of the probate granted by the middlesex surrogate court, new jersey, usa, i am satisfied that the probate granted in favour of the petitioner is granted by a competent court at new jersey, usa, it has not been obtained by fraud,it has been granted on merits, etc. as per the requirements of section 13 c.p.c.6. accordingly, the present petition for re-endorsement over the probate already granted in favour of the petitioner by a foreign court is allowed with regard to the respective shares in the movable and immovable properties of late sh. rusibrij situated in india, subject to the petitioner filing the security bond and the requisite court fee on the value of the immovable properties.7. the petition is disposed of accordingly. kailash gambhir, j december 06

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TEST.CAS. 109/2011 RENU BRIJ ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Jagjit Singh with Mr.Bhagat Singh, Advs. versus STATE AND ORS Through ..... Respondent Ms.JyotiKataria Proxy Adv. for Mr. B.S. Dhir for D-2 to 5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR % 1. ORDER 06 12.2012 The petitioner has filed the present petition under sections 213, 228, 273 ofIndian Succession Act, 1925 read with section 41 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 13 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking reendorsement over the probate already granted in favour of the petitioner by a foreign court in respect of the Will dated 12.3.2009 executed by her husband, late Sh. RusiBrij who died on 20.5.2009 in New Jersey,USA. Copy of the death certificate is placed on record. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are son and daughter, Respondent no.4 is the mother and respondent no. 5 is the brother of the testator.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the said Will, the deceased appointed Petitioner as beneficiary as well as Executor to the 1 of 3 said Will. It is averred in the plaint that the testator, Sh. RusiBrij executed his last Will and testament on 12.3.2009 bequeathing his entire movable and immovable properties in favour of his wife, the Petitioner herein, to the exclusion of his other legal heirs, namely, his two children (Respondent nos. 2 & 3).. Respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5 are impleaded as parties to the case because they along with the testator have 1/3rd share each in aforesaid immovable properties of the petitioner located in India, namely, A-3/509 Milan Vihar , Plot No. 72, IP Extention, Patparganj, New Delhi 110092 and A-502, Sun City, Sector 52, Gurgaon, Haryana.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the probate has already been granted in his favour by the competent court at New Jersey, USA and the petitioner has now come before this court to seek re-endorsement over the probate granted in his favour with respect to the properties situated within India. In support of this, the petitioner has placed on record a true and certified copy of the probate granted by the Middlesex Surrogate Court, New Jersey, USA.

4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and examined the documents placed on record.

5. Petitioner has filed his evidence by way of his affidavit and the affidavits of the two attesting witnesses to the Will who testified that the facts narrated in the petition are true and correct. The written statement averring no objection to the contents of the petition is filed by the Respondent nos. 2 to 5 in which they clearly state that they admit the 2 of 3 petition and have no objection if the probate is granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the Will dated 12.3.2009 executed by late Sh. RusiBrij in respect of his estate (both movable and immovable) situated in India. They also aver in the written statement that this no objection to the probate is executed by them with their free will and consent without any force, coercion or undue influence from any corner whatsoever.

6. In the absence of any opposition to the petition and in view of the deposition by way of affidavits of the petitioners witnesses, which is unrebutted, the averments made in the petition stands proved.

7. On perusal of the certified copy of the probate granted by the Middlesex Surrogate Court, New Jersey, USA, I am satisfied that the probate granted in favour of the petitioner is granted by a competent court at New Jersey, USA, it has not been obtained by fraud,it has been granted on merits, etc. as per the requirements of section 13 C.P.C.

6. Accordingly, the present petition for re-endorsement over the probate already granted in favour of the petitioner by a foreign court is allowed with regard to the respective shares in the movable and immovable properties of late Sh. RusiBrij situated in India, subject to the petitioner filing the security bond and the requisite court fee on the value of the immovable properties.

7. The petition is disposed of accordingly. KAILASH GAMBHIR, J DECEMBER 06

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2012 Same Parties Renu Brij vs State and ors Same Subject Education Same Judge Kailash Gambhir