Interim Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 25 RC ARC 13/23
AASHI JAIN Vs. LALIT TANEJA
-1/3-
17.11.2025
Present: Sh. Hitesh Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
Respondent in person.
The respondent has moved application u/o VII rule
14 CPC r.w.s. 151 CPC for filing handwriting expert opinion.
Though the application has been filed u/o VII rule
14 CPC, same is treated as an application u/o VIII rule 1 (A)
CPC.
The counsel for respondent has argued that that
petitioner is claiming himself to be the owner of tenanted
premises on the basis of Will dated 04.04.2022 purportedly
executed by Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain in his favour. It is argued
that the petitioner has forged the signature of Sh. Naresh Kumar
Jain upon the Will. It is submitted that the petitioner filed the
forged Will in another connected matter bearing RC/ ARC No.
22/2020. It is argued that the signature of Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain
upon Will and the admitted signature of Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain
on page no. 15 and 17 of eviction petition already Ex. PW1/DA
are different which establish through handwriting expert opinion.
It is also argued that the respondent categorically averred in W/S
that the Will dated 04.04.2022 is forged and fabricated. Ld.
Counsel has stated that opinion of handwriting expert is relevant
and material for proper adjudication of the case.
Ld. Counsel for petitioner has opposed the
application and has argued that the tenant can not dispute the
-- 1 of 3 --
25 RC ARC 13/23
AASHI JAIN Vs. LALIT TANEJA
-2/3-
authenticity of Will as he is having only a limited right of
tenancy. It is argued that the tenant is estopped from disputing
the ownership of the petitioner. Ld. Counsel has relied upon
judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in ‘Jalal &
Sons & Anr Vs. Sita Bai (Dead) by LRs & Ors’ 2001 (2) ALD
547.
Arguments heard.
This Court is in agreement with the submissions
made by ld. Counsel for petitioner that the respondent being
tenant in the premises can not dispute the ownership of the
petitioner who is the grandson of the original landlord. Hon’ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Jalal & Sons
(supra) has
observed that persons with limited right can not be allowed to
question the validity of Will. It is observed as follows:
“14. Who can impeach the validity of the Will and in
what circumstances the Court should insist on the
strict compliance of the proof of the Will. When a
Will is relied on in support of the right to property, in
the absence of any other Will, nothing prevents the
Court to conclusively presume that the Will is last
testament of the deceased testator. It is a different
thing whether the Will is required to be proved or not.
When the validity of the Will is in question and
challenged the propounder of the Will is required to
prove the Will in accordance with Section 68 of the
Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession
Act. Ordinarily, the persons with limited penumbral
right to property arc treated as strangers and cannot
be allowed to question the validity of the Will. For
example, a tenant, a statutory tenant, a licensee or a
person with limited right of occupation cannot
question the Will propounded by the beneficiary. The
only exception would be when a near relative of the
deceased testator who is given a limited right of
vested reminder in the property who can be permitted
to question the validity of the Will when such person
sets up absolute right in himself. The premise that law
-- 2 of 3 --
25 RC ARC 13/23
AASHI JAIN Vs. LALIT TANEJA
-3/3-
permits every stranger or a person with limited
interest or limited right to possession under lease to
question the Will is not a sound principle of law and
is fraught with illogicality and illegality. Under the
Rent Act a tenant has statutory protection of not being
evicted unreasonably or without valid cause. The
limited right given to tenant under the Act cannot be
treated as conferring a right to question the validity of
the Will propounded by beneficiary in whose favour
the premises is bequeathed by the deceased original
landlord.”
Since the respondent is a tenant having limited
right, he can not dispute the validity of the Will. It is for other
co-owners of the property to dispute the Will. In view of the
above observation, application in hand stands dismissed.
To come up for RE on 05.02.2026.
(Ajay Singh Parihar)
ACJ-cum-ARC/North
Rohini Court/17.11.2025
-- 3 of 3 --