1954 Supreme(Pat) 44

PATNA HIGH COURT
Sinha and Misra JJ.
Babulal Mandal
Versus
Sm.Abala Bala Dasya
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 948 of 1948 ;
Decided On : MARCH 17, 1954

A compromise in a proceeding for letters of administration arrived at between defendant No. 1 on the one hand, and some of the heirs-at-law of the testator, on the other, was not a good and binding agreement because it was not registered and, therefore, lacked legal form and could not affect immovable property, namely, the lands in suit.

Headnote:

SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 213 - WILL - PROBATE - RIGHT UNDER WILL - ESTABLISHMENT - BAR - DEFENDANT - SECTION 53A, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - POSSESSION - PROTECTION - CONDITIONS - COMPROMISE - REGISTRATION - NECESSITY.

Fact of the Case:

A will was made by Ananta Mahata, leaving four annas share in his properties to his wife, Baroda, and twelve annas to Thakmoni, widowed daughter-in-law by his predeceased son, Hari Ram. After the death of the testator, Baroda and Thakmoni propounded the will and prayed for letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed. Caveat was entered, amongst others, by Abala Bala Dasya, the plaintiff. During the pendency of the proceedings for letters of administration, Baroda died and for some time the proceeding was continued by Thakmoni alone. Thakmoni was murdered in January, 1940 and her brother, Babulal Mandal, defendant No. 1, was substituted in her place on 15-6-1940. A petition of compromise was filed on 12-11-1940 between the present defendant No. 1, on the one hand, and Saroda Mandal, defendant No. 7 and Panu Mandal, husband of defendant No. 12. The Court refused to record the compromise, and the compromise petition was directed to be kept on the record. Letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed were ordered to be issued to defendant No. 1 on 23-12-1940. The present plaintiff filed an appeal to this Court (First Appeal No. 18 of 1941) against the decree of the Subordinate Judge granting letters of administration to Babulal Mandal. From the order-sheet of the High Court, which we sent for and perused, it appears that the parties were heard and judgment had been reserved. When the judgment was about to be delivered, there was a prayer for postponement of the delivery of the judgment, and, on 5-5-1943, this Court allowed the present defendant No. 1 to withdraw the application for letters of administration and he was to pay costs to the appellant of that appeal, the present plaintiff. It was further said that defendant No. 1 would make no further application for grant of letters of administration with a copy of the will of Ananta Mahata annexed.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the compromise in the proceeding for letters of administration arrived at between defendant No. 1 on the one hand, and some of the heirs-at-law of the testator, on the other, was not a good and binding agreement and that the possession taken by defendant No. 1 was not protected under Sec. 53A. Transfer of Property Act. The Court also held that the High Court appeal should be deemed to be still pending.

Issues: 1. Whether the compromise in the proceeding for letters of administration arrived at between defendant No. 1 on the one hand, and some of the heirs-at-law of the testator, on the other, was a good and binding agreement? 2. Whether the possession taken by defendant No. 1 was protected under Sec. 53A. Transfer of Property Act? 3. Whether the High Court appeal should be deemed to be still pending?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The compromise in the proceeding for letters of administration arrived at between defendant No. 1 on the one hand, and some of the heirs-at-law of the testator, on the other, was not a good and binding agreement because it was not registered and, therefore, lacked legal form and could not affect immovable property, namely, the lands in suit. 2. The possession taken by defendant No. 1 was not protected under Sec. 53A. Transfer of Property Act because he never came in possession of the lands on the basis of the compromise or thereafter before he or the other defendants dispossessed the plaintiff wrongfully. 3. The High Court appeal should not be deemed to be still pending because the will was not probated and no letters of administration had been granted, and, therefore, defendant No. 1 could not establish his rights under the will.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed without costs.