Ashutosh Samanta (D) by LRs. VS S. M. Ranjan Bala Dasi - Supreme Today AI
Hi Guest, You are using a Trial - Expire on , Click Here to Subscribe to Upgrade your Plan!

2023 0 Supreme(SC) 211

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Ashutosh Samanta (D) by LRs. and Others – Appellants
Versus
S.M. Ranjan Bala Dasi and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7775 of 2021
Decided On : 14-03-2023

IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of letters of administration – Presumption under Section 90 of Evidence Act, 1872 as to regularity of documents more than 30 years of age is inapplicable when it comes to proof of Wills, which have to be proved in terms of Sections 63(c) of Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of Evidence Act.

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 63(c) and 278 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 68, 69, 71 and 90 – Petition for grant of letters of administration – Presumption under Section 90 of Evidence Act, 1872 as to regularity of documents more than 30 years of age is inapplicable when it comes to proof of Wills, which have to be proved in terms of Sections 63(c) of Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of Evidence Act – In the event where attesting witnesses may have died, or cannot be found, Propounder is not helpless as Section 69 of Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable – In present case, Will was duly executed and letters of administration was rightly granted by High Court. (Paras 13, 17, 20 and 21)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal, by special leave, challenges a judgment and order of the Calcutta High Court dated 02.02.2007 which affirmed a judgment and decree by the trial court allowing a petition for grant of letters of administration under Section 278 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. Aggrieved defendant is the appellant before this court.

Findings of Court:

If all circumstances are considered in totality, and one also keeps in mind the fact that none of the heirs of Upendra contested the grant of letters of administration, there can be only one conclusion, i.e. that the will was duly executed, and the Propounder/respondent herein was successful in proving it.

Result : Appeal dismissed.

Act Referred :
EVIDENCE ACT : S.68, S.69, S.71, S.90
SUCCESSION ACT : S.63(c), S.278

Cases Referred:
Babu Singh & Ors. v. Ram Sahai alias Ram Singh, Civil Appeal No. 3124/2008, dated 30.04.2008 [Para 15] – Relied - Referred
Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh 2009 (3) SCC 687 [Para 12] – Relied - Referred
Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam 2003 (2) SCC 91 [Para 12] – Relied - Referred
K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7082/2008, decided on 03.12.2008 [Para 15] – Relied - Referred
M.B. Ramesh (D) by L.Rs. v. K.M. Veeraje Urs (D) by L.Rs. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1071/2006, decided on 03.05.2013 [Para 12] – Relied - Referred
V. Kalyanaswamy (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. L. Bakthavatsalam (D) by L.Rs. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1021-26/2013, decided on 17.07.2020 [Para 16] – Relied - Referred

Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Subhro Sanyal, AOR Mr. Sagar Roy, Adv. Mr. Vipin Shandilya, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Lamba, Adv. Ms. Aprajita Mukherjee, AOR

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

Background

1. This appeal, by special leave, challenges a judgment and order of the Calcutta High Court1 [F.A. No. 664/1972, dated 02.02.2007] which affirmed a judgment and decree by the trial court2 [O.S. No. 7/1969, dated 31.05.1972] allowing a petition for grant of letters of administration under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter “Act”). The aggrieved defendant is the appellant before this court.

2. The facts in brief are that one Gosaidas Samanta (hereinafter “testator”) had three sons - Upendra, Anukul and Mahadev. He died, survived by his three sons and widow Bhagbati Das, and left behind a will dated 16.11.1929. The testator bequeathed his estate among three heirs - his sons Anukul and Mahadev and his grandson Shibu, the son of Upendra (who was not granted any share). On 21.02.1945, a partition deed was drawn between these three co-sharers. This arrangement was apparently accepted by Upendra, who executed a disclaimer document, in respect of one part of the properties, sold by Shibu, out of his share.

3. In 1952, alleging that he was in occupation of a part of the properties owned by the testator, and that he had purchased them from Upendra, the present appellant filed a suit for partition and possession. The suit was dismissed on the finding that the present appellant had no title.3 [Title Suit No. 647/1952, dated 29.08.1957] That judgment was however reversed by the appellate court which passed a preliminary decree for partition. 4 [Title Appeal No. 1027/1957, dated 17.02.1959] Upon a further appeal by the present respondent (the son of Mahadev), the High Court noticed that although the will had been relied upon, it was neither probated nor were letters of administration sought in respect of it.5 [Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 950/1959, dated 27.11.1967] The High Court cast doubts about the possession of the respondent herein.

4. Having regard to the High Court’s finding, especially the absence of a probate or letters of administration, the respondents herein approached the competent court for letters of administration.6 [By filing O.S. No. 79/1969] At the time of trial, none of the attesting witnesses was alive. The trial court therefore, relied upon the depositions of two of the sons of the testator as well as the deposition of one Surendra Nath Bhowmick who deposed to having seen the testator duly sign the will.

5. The administration proceedings were contested by the present appellant, i.e. the purchaser of the properties from Upendra.