SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Kar) 300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VINEET KOTHARI, J.
Ms. M.A.I. Kovoor @ Anna Kovoor - Petitioner
Vs.
Mr. Thomas Ipe Kovoor (Jr.) & Ors. - Respondents
Probate C P 7 of 2011
Decided On : 22-07-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. LPE Rego for M/s Rego & Rego
For the Respondents: Mr. R.I. D’sa, Mr. B. Krishna Murhty, Mr. Vasanth V. Fernandez

Headnote:INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - Section 278: [Vineet Kothari, J] Grant of Letters of administration - Petition under Section 278 was filed on basis that deceased died intestate - However contesting respondents produced original but unregistered Will of deceased before court - Petition was dismissed and parties were left to claim their share in estate by way of partition suit or by proving Will in appropriate proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Ms M A I Kovoor @ Anna Kovoor (‘Anna’ for short) under S.278 r/w S.219 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking a Letter of Administration under the said provisions in respect of estate of her deceased sister Elizabeth Ipe Kovoor who died on 7.7.2011 at Sahaya Holistic Integrative Hospital, Bangalore, and according to the petitioner, she died intestate leaving her property in Bangalore and Mumbai.

2. The said petition was filed by the petitioner Anna on 13.8.2014 after the earlier petition filed by her under S.218 (and not S.219) came to be rejected by this Court as not maintainable in the very case, dismissed on 01.03.2013. The petitioner Anna has arrayed the other siblings viz., brothers, sisters and sister’s two sons of the deceased Elizabeth in the following sequence.

Respondent 1 Mr. Thomas Ipe Kovoor (Jr), (biological brother), aged 66 yrs at the time of filing the present petition in 2011, living in USA; (Not objecting vide memo dated 22.5.2012)

Respondent 2 Mrs. Molly Anthony D’Souza (nee) Kovoor (biological sister), aged 65 yrs, living in Kottayam, Kerala; (contesting respondent)

Respondent 3 Mrs. Mary Mathews (biological sister), aged 64 yrs, living in Kottayam, Kerala; (Not objecting vide memo dated 22.5.2012)

Respondent 4 Mr. Mathew Ipe Kovoor (biological brother), aged 62 years, living in Kothamangalam, Kerala; (contesting respondent)

Respondent 5 Capt. Iype Ipe Kovoor (biological borther), aged 55 yrs, living in Mumbai, Maharashtra; (contesting respondent)

Respondent 6 Mr. Alex Anthony, 43 yrs and Respondent 7 Mr. Edward Anthony, 42 yrs; the last two being the sons of the 2nd respondent Mrs. Molly Anthony D’Souza and being contesting respondents. The petitioner Anna was of 60 yrs when she filed the present petition.

3. The petitioner claims that the deceased Elizabeth, during her lifetime, remained unmarried and therefore, she was not having any lineal descendants and since the biological parents of deceased Elizabeth viz., her father Thomas Ipe Kovoor (Sr.) died on 16.8.1988 and his spouse Annamma Ipe Kovoor (nee) Mathew died on 6.11.2003 and all the members of the family being Indian Christians, the case is covered by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘Act’ for short). The petitioner being a sibling and real sister of the deceased Elizabeth and is otherwise not suffering from any disability or disqualification to be appointed as Administrator for the estate of the deceased, the details of which are given in the schedule of the present petition. She valued the said estate at Rs.2,45,26,700/- and after deducting all lawful deductions, the net value is declared at Rs.1,77,89,371/- including movable and immovable assets.

4. The petitioner also claimed that she undertakes to duly administer the estate of the deceased Elizabeth and in paragraph 20 of the petition, it is also stated that some of the estates of the deceased Elizabeth are in the hands of intermeddlers who are respondents 2, 6 and 7 and her sister Mrs. Molly Anthony and her two sons respondents 6 & 7 Mr. Alex Anthony and Mr. Edward Anthony besides respondents 4 and 5 also have contested this case and opposed the grant of letter of administration in favour of the present petitioner.

5. The petitioner expressed the apprehension in paragraph 20 of the petition that these contesting respondents are claiming the estate of the deceased on the basis of an alleged unregistered Will purportedly executed by the deceased Elizabeth on 5.1.2011 and a photocopy of which has been produced by the petitioner herself as Ex.B. The petitioner has expressed that the deceased Elizabeth lacked the testamentary capacity as she suffered from adverse medical condition in the form of cancer prior to her death and the alleged Will claimed by respondents 2, 6 & 7 aforesaid is heavily shrouded in suspicion and improbability and therefore, petitioner should be allowed to administer the estate of the deceased s





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top