Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.J. JAMADAR, J.
Uday Sharad Kulkarni – Appellant
Versus
Claude Lila Narayan Parulekar (Deceased) – Respondent
IAL/30893 Of 2022
Decided On : 12-11-2024
(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 270, 273, and 300 - Letters of Administration - Petition for grant of Letters of Administration challenged on grounds of jurisdiction as properties were located outside the jurisdiction of the High Court - Court allowed amendment to include properties within jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdictional basis. (Paras 1, 44, 46)
(B) Jurisdiction - The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge under Section 300, but must ensure the deceased had a fixed place of abode or property within jurisdiction to entertain the petition. (Paras 22, 30)
Facts of the case: The petitioner sought to amend a petition for Letters of Administration to include properties of the deceased, asserting jurisdiction despite opposition from the caveator, who claimed the petition was filed mala fide and without cause of action. (Paras 2-6)
Findings of Court: The application for amendment was allowed, and the petition was deemed maintainable before the High Court, as it aimed to ensure all properties were administered. (Paras 44, 46)
Issues: The main issue was whether the petition for Letters of Administration was maintainable before the High Court given the jurisdictional claims and the amendment to include properties. (Paras 21, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that jurisdiction must be established based on the deceased's fixed place of abode or property within the jurisdiction; the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court does not negate these requirements. (Paras 30, 44)
Result: Application for amendment allowed; application for rejection of the petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 5)
JUDGMENT :
(N.J. Jamadar, J.)
1. These applications raise an issue of jurisdiction of this Court, primarily, and were, therefore, heard together and are decided by this common order.
Interim Application (L) No. 30893 of 2022 -
2. This is an application for amendment in the petition for grant of Letters of Administration to the property and credits of Claude Lila Narayan Parulekar (the deceased) so as to include additional movable and immovable properties enumerated in the schedule annexed at Exhibit A to the application.
3. The applicant/petitioner filed the petition for grant of Letters of Administration asserting, inter alia, that the deceased died intestate leaving behind the petitioner and other surviving heirs and next of kin, the particulars of whom are furnished in the table at paragraph 4 of the petition. The petitioner claimed to be a son of the paternal cousin sister of the deceased. The petitioner asserted that the deceased has left behind the property described in the Schedule B i.e. 4-A, Queen’s Garden, Pune.
4. ‘Jeev Raksha Animal Welfare Trust’ has entered a caveat. Thereupon, the petition came to be converted into Testamentary Suit No. 65 of 2023.
5. The applicant has preferred this application asserting that while filing the petition, the petitioner was aware that the deceased has properties within Greater Bombay and in the State of Maharashtra. However, the specific details were not available. The petitioner made inquiries and became aware that movable and immovable properties as described in the schedule ‘Exhibit A’ appended to this application belonged to the deceased. Hence, this application to amend the Schedule of Properties by incorporating the said properties.
6. An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the caveator. The caveator has strongly opposed the prayer for amendment. At the outset, it is contended that the application for amendment has been filed mala fide and with ulterior motive. In fact, the Testamentary Petition for grant of Letters of Administration could not have been entertained at all as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the petition for grant of Letters of Administration. The deceased passed away at Pune on 13th September, 2016. The deceased had a fixed place of abode at Pune. The property described in the Schedule appended to the petition is situated at Pune. No cause of action of whatsoever nature arose within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of this Court.
7. The caveator thus contends that, to fill in the lacuna and tide over the incurable defect, the petitioner has made an endeavour to amend the petition. In fact, the amendment was sought to be surreptitiously made before the Testamentary Registrar, who declined to allow the petitioner to amend the petition on the basis of praecipe.
8. In the instant application also, the petitioner has made deliberate false statement. There was no reference in the original petition that the deceased left behind any property within the territorial limits of ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court. Yet, in the instant application, it is blatantly asserted that the petitioner had pleaded in the petition that the deceased had left behind properties in Mumbai.
9. The caveator further contends that the deceased had left behind a Will dated 1st May, 2010, whereunder she bequeathed all her properties to the caveator trust. A Probate application No. 977 of 2016 has been filed before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Pune. In the said application, the applicant has filed a caveat. However, the said caveat has not been pursued. The applicant has also filed a Misc. Petition No. 108 of 2023 before this Court seeking the transfer of the said probate application No. 977 of 2016 from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune to this Court. In that proceedings as well, the respondent-trust has raised objections. Thus, the caveator contends the instant application is an dis- ingenious attempt to confer juri
Important Point : The High Court can grant Letters of Administration only if the deceased had a fixed place of abode or property within its jurisdiction, despite concurrent jurisdiction provisions.
The High Court's jurisdiction to grant probate is limited to cases where properties are outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, and citation under Section 283(3) is unnecessary if....
The High Court possesses jurisdiction to grant letters of administration under the Indian Succession Act but may decline to exercise this discretion based on appropriate jurisdictional considerations....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the District Court has jurisdiction to grant and revoke probate and letters of administration in cases specifically covered under Section 57(c....
Section 215 of Act is incorporated with effect of supersession on grant of probate or letters of administration.
No petition for probate filed under Section 276 of the Act. In the absence of any such petition, the court below cannot invoke the provisions under Section 295 of the Act.
(1) There is no prohibition for a person from producing, relying upon and claiming a right under a Will, in any proceeding instituted by others including other legal heirs for partition or other reli....
Point of law: A conjoint reading of Sections 371, 372 and 384 of the Act would show that the original jurisdiction to entertain and decide a petition for the grant of a succession certificate has bee....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
