Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 734
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
Rahul Krishnamohan Sharma
Versus
Sangita Krishnagopal Sharma
Misc. Petition No. 39 of 2014 In Testamentary Petition No. 403 of 2013
Decided on: 24-03-2014
For the Petitioner:P.Y. Shankar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T.G. Vora, a/w. D.R. Mishra, Shailesh Shukla, Advocates.
The petitioner must have a caveatable interest and meet the requirements under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act to seek revocation of letters of administration.
Headnote:
Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 263: The petitioner relies on section 263(b) and (c) to argue for revocation of the letters of administration. The court examines the provisions and concludes that the petitioner's arguments do not meet the requirements for revocation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks revocation of the letters of administration granted to the respondent. The petitioner claims that the flat in question was bequeathed to him under the deceased's will, and therefore, the respondent obtained the letters of administration fraudulently. The respondent argues that the petitioner does not have a caveatable interest and was rightly not cited in the testamentary petition. The court finds that the petitioner does not fall in class I of legal heirs and therefore was not entitled to be served with any citation. The court also states that the title dispute over the flat cannot be decided by the testamentary court.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzes the family tree, the deceased's will, and the arguments of both parties. The court concludes that the petitioner does not have a just cause for revocation of the letters of administration and dismisses the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determines that the petitioner does not have a caveatable interest and was rightly not cited in the testamentary petition. The court also states that the title dispute over the flat cannot be decided by the testamentary court.
Result: The petition for revocation of the letters of administration is dismissed.
P.C.
1. By this petition filed under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the petitioner seeks revocation of the letters of administration dated 20th September, 2013 passed by this court in favour of the respondent. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy involved, it would be appropriate to refer to the family tree which is annexed at Ex.1 to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent.
2. Mr. Karamchand Sharma had two sons viz. Krishnamohan Sharma and Krishnagopal Sharma. It is not in dispute that Mr. Karamchand Sharma had left a Will dated 16th January, 2005 in respect of which the probate has been granted by this court on 18th September, 2006 in favour of the executor of the said Will Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma. On 13th November, 2012 Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma expired leaving behind him Mrs. Sangeeta and two daughters viz. Shikha and Shivani Sharma.
3. Mr. Krishnamohan Sharma, another son of the deceased Mr. Karamchand Sharma expired leaving behind him widow Mrs. Hemlata Sharma, two daughters viz. Poonam and Pooja Sharma and one son Rahul Sharma.
4. On demise of Krishnagopal Sharma, who died intestate, his widow Mrs. Sangeeta filed a Testamentary Petition (403 of 2013) in this court inter alia praying for letters of administration in respect of the estate of Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma. On 20th September, 2013, this court has granted letters of administration in respect of the estate of Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma in favour of Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma.
5. Mr. Rahul Sharma, who is one of the son of Mr. Krishnamohan Sharma has filed this petition under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of the letters of administration dated 20th September, 2013 granted in favour of Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma on the ground that under the Will of the deceased Karamchand Sharma dated 16th January, 2005 the Flat No. 16 situated at Thakur Ghatkopar CHS Ltd., Plot No.18, Gamdevi Lane, Sanghani Estate, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400 086 was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner herein and thus he ought to have been cited by Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma in the petition for letters of administration in respect of the estate of her deceased husband Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma. It is submitted that though under the said Will dated 16th January, 2005, of the deceased grandfather Mr. Karamchand Sharma, the said flat no. 16 was bequeathed in favour of petitioner, the said Mrs. Sangeeta obtained the letters of administration fraudulently by not citing the petitioner in the said petition and by concealing these facts. It is submitted that since Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma was not the owner in respect of the said flat as the same was not bequeathed by Mr. Karamchand Sharma, no letters of administration could be obtained in respect of the said flat by Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on section 263 (b), (c) and would submit that since the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion or by concealing from the court, the fact that flat No.16 was bequeathed in favour of petitioner and not in favour of the deceased husband of Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma and since grant was also obtained by means of untrue allegations of the fact, such grant of letters of administration shall be revoked under section 263 (b) and (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Basanti Devi vs. Raviprakash R.Jaiswal in Appeal (Civil) No. 4896 of 2007 in support of his submission that since the judgment in testamentary petition for letters of administration granted in favour of Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma was in rem and since the petitioner had no knowledge about such proceedings and he not having been served with any citation, he is entitled to file an application for revocation of probate on the grounds available under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
6. Mr. Vora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand s
