Sharad Shankarrao Mane and another vs Ashabai Shripati Mane and another

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1996 Supreme(Bom) 524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dr. (Mrs.) P.D. Upasani, J.
Sharad Shankarrao Mane and another.... Petitioners.
Versus
Ashabai Shripati Mane and another.... Respondents.
Misc. Petition No. 14 of 1994 in Petition No. 591 of 1990 and Misc. Petition No. 4 of 1995 in
Petition No. 591 of 1990, decided on 25-9-1996.
Advocates appeared :
P. N. Patwardhan for the petitioner in Misc. Petition No. 14 of 1994 in Petition No. 591 of 1990.
M. P. Shukla for the respondent in both the matters.
R. N. Jawal for the petitioner in Misc. Petition No. 4 of 1995 in Petition No. 591 of 1990.

Headnote:Sections 218 and 263Grimt of letter of administration to widow being not legally wedded wife of deceased-Power of testamentary Court-Challenge-Production of unproved documents- Dissolution- of marriage with earlier husband not done-Absence of evidence-No declaration by competent Court factor of legally wedded wife beyond the jurisdiction of testamentary Court-Respondent is wife of deceased grant of administration cannot be set aside-Petition dismissed.-At the out-set it has to be highlighted that in both these petitions the prayer is common namely for revoking the grant which is already made in favour of the respondent Ashabai on 3.12.1991 and this prayer is made under Section 362(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The common ground is that Ashabai was not legally married to the said Shripati and that she has concealed this fact fraudulently from the Court and thus succeeded in getting the Letters of Administration in her favour. It means that there is a challenge in both the petitions to her status as a wife of the deceased Shripati Nana Mane. Both the petitioners are trying to disprove the factum of the alleged marriage of Ashabai with Shripati on the basis of Xerox copies of some documents which are not even true certified copies. In fact these Xerox copies are tendered only in one matter namely Misc. Petition No. 14 of 1994. Now the question is whether on the basis of the Xerox copies of some obscure documents which are not even true certified copies and which are not proved as per the provisions of Evidence Ad should be accepted by the Court? In Court opinion, the answer will be obviously in the negative. Here the question is determining the legal status of a person and this declaration has to be given by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The job of the testamentary Court is not to give declaration of this type. The job of the testamentary Court is to see that the estate of the deceased is properly represented by the some person who can give a valid discharge to the debtors of the deceased, who can preserve and protect the property till it is disbursed as per the Personal Laws of the parties.
If declaration and conclusive findings are given by a Testamentary Court about the material status of a woman accepting and believing the Xerox copies of some documents tendered across the bar and if the grant already made in favour of that woman is revoked on the basis of such documents which are not formally proved as per the provisions of law then it will be too risky a situation.

JUDGMENT - Dr. (Mrs.) P.D. UPASANI, J. :---Both these petitions will be disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2.Smt. Ashabai Shripati Mane is a common respondent in both these petitions who was granted Letters of Administration with respect to the property of her deceased husband Shripati Nana Mane. The said respondent Ashabai Mane had filed Petition No. 591 of 1990 for being granted Letters of Administration and the grant was made in her favour on 3-12-1991. The present petitions are filed by one Sharad Shankarrao Mane (Misc. Petition No. 14 of 1994) and one Namdev Govind Dhavale (Misc. Petition No. 4 of 1995) for revocation of the said grant under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.

3.It is the case of Sharad Mane who is the petitioner in Misc. Petition No. 14 of 1994 that he is the nephew of Shripati Nana Mane (brother's-son). It is his contention that the respondent Smt. Ashabai Mane was never married to his uncle Shripati Mane who died intestate. It is his case that though the respondent Ashabai Mane claims to be the wife of the said deceased Shripati Nana Mane, she was not legally married to him and that in fact she was earlier married to one Kashid and that her marriage with the said Kashid was not legally dissolved. It is further the case of the petitioner that he, along with eleven others are the only heirs and legal representatives of the said Shripati Mane who died intestate at Bombay on 15-6-1975. He has given the names of those eleven others who according to him are the heirs and legal representatives of the said Shripati Mane including himself. It is the contention of the petitioner Sharad Mane that the said deceased Shripati Mane during his life time had married to one Hirabai alias Subhadra sometime in the year 1953-54. It is further his contention that the couple had no issue. Thereafter Shripati Mane died intestate in Bombay on 15-6-1975 leaving behind him the said Hirabai alias Subhadra as his only heir and legal representative, as mother of Shripati had predeceased him. Thereafter Hirabai also died intestate at Bombay on or about 3-8-1988. It is the case of the petitioner that therefore the only person who were heirs and legal representatives of Hirabai were the brothers of the deceased Shripati Mane namely; (1) Shankarrao Nana Mane and (ii) Dinkarrao Nana Mane.

4.It is the case of the petitioner that the said Ashabai Mane suppressed all these facts and succeeded in obtaining Letters of Administration of the estate of the said deceased Shripati Mane which consisted of one Hair Cutting Saloon situated at Shivaji Park, Bombay, a plot of land admeasuring about 300 square yards along with a house situated at village Nisare, Taluka Patan, Dist, Satara valued at Rs. 20,000/-, agricultural land admeasuring about 30 gunthas situated at the same village valued at about Rs. 16,000/- and amount standing to the credit of the deceased Shripati Mane being the pension amount from the Bombay Municipal Corporation under Account No. B.M.C. 109 with Bank of Maharashtra, Ranade Road, Dadar, Bombay-400 028, from the date of death of the deceased Shripati Mane till November, 1990 which is about Rs. 6600/-.

5.The petitioner's case further is that his father Shankarrao Nana Mane died intestate at Dombivali on or about 7th June, 1993 leaving behind the petitioner and eleven others as the only heirs and legal representatives. After the death of said Shankarrao Mane, the petitioner started making enquiries about the estate and properties of the said Shankarrao Mane and during the course of the said enquiries, the petitioner became aware of the said estate left behind by the said deceased Shripati Mane in which the petitioner's father Shankarrao had a right at the time of his death. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the course of the said enquiries, the petitioner learnt that Ashabai was claiming to be the widow of the said deceased Shripati Mane and the only heir and legal representative of the said decea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document