Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
K.Sahai and N.L.Untwalia JJ.
Kartar Singh
Versus
Administrator General Of Bihar
Letter Patent Appeal No. 27 of 1956 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 18, 1958
ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL - DIRECTION TO CONVEY PROPERTY - APPEALABILITY OF ORDER - JUDGMENT - INTERPRETATION - ADMINISTRATOR GENERALS ACT, 1913, SEC. 28 - LETTERS PATENT OF THE PATNA HIGH COURT, CLAUSE 10.
Fact of the Case:
The Administrator General applied for directions to convey a property to the appellant, who had purchased it from the alleged heirs of the deceased. The appellant had obtained a lease of the property from the Administrator General and had also obtained a succession certificate in respect of arrears of rent due from a tenant of the property. The Administrator General's application was granted by the High Court, but was later recalled on the ground that several misstatements of facts had been made to the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order recalling the direction to convey the property was not appealable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, as it did not create any right in favor of the appellant. The Court also held that the Administrator General had made several misstatements of facts to the Court, which had led it to give a direction that it would not have given if it had known the true facts. The Court further held that the Administrator General should have been more vigilant and astute in protecting the interests of the estate and should not have allowed the appellant to take unfair advantage of the alleged heirs of the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the order recalling the direction to convey the property was appealable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court? 2. Whether the Administrator General had made several misstatements of facts to the Court? 3. Whether the Administrator General should have been more vigilant and astute in protecting the interests of the estate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An order passed under the Administrator Generals Act, 1913, or otherwise cannot be held to be a judgment within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent unless it determines any right or liability. 2. The Administrator General had made several misstatements of facts to the Court, which had led it to give a direction that it would not have given if it had known the true facts. 3. The Administrator General should have been more vigilant and astute in protecting the interests of the estate and should not have allowed the appellant to take unfair advantage of the alleged heirs of the deceased.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Sahai, J.
1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court is directed against an order dated 10-9-1956, passed by Ramaswami, C.J., in Testamentary Case No. 1 of 1953 whereby he recalled his order dated 5-8-1955, and cancelled the direction given by him in that order.
2. It is necessary to mention the facts which are as follows: One Mahadeo Halwai died in October, 1951, leaving a two storeyed pucca house and certain premises in Holding No. 90 of Jugsalai, a suburb of Jamshedpur, as his only property. I will refer to these premises as the disputed house in the rest of this judgment. One Bihari Bania, claiming to be a brother of Mahadeo, applied along with others to the District Judge of Manbhum-Singhbhum for grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of deceased Mahadeo. This application was dismissed on 2-4-1952. Bihari died on the 17th August of the same year. On the 3rd February, 1953, the Administrator General (who was then Mr. G.P. Shahi) filed an application for grant of letters of administration to him in respect of Mohadeos estate under Section 7 of the Administrator Generals Act, 1913 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). This was registered as Testamentary Case No. 1 of 1953. Mewa Lal and others, claiming to be heirs of Mahadeo, filed an objection. They gave the following genealogical table in order to show their relationships with Mahadeo.
BHAGWAN DAS
|
________________________________________
| |
Mahadeo Bihari
|
______________________ ________________
| | |
Dull Fulkalia Kamla
(Dead) | (Dead)
| Nathu Ram |
| Kalabati
______________________
| |
Mewa Lal Chhote Lal
By his order dated the 4th August, 1953, Ramaswami, J., (as he then was) granted letters of administration to the Administrator General under Section 7 of the Act in respect of Mahadeos estate, and, so far as the objection of the objectors was concerned, he observed:
"If the affidavit filed on behalf of the objectors is true and if Musammat Fulkalia is daughter of Bihari Bania and niece of Mahadeo Bania, it is undoubtedly open to her to file a proper application for letters of administration and obtain a grant. But no such grant has so far been obtained by Musammat Fulkalia and the application filed on behalf of the Administrator General of Bihar for grant of the letters of administration of the estate of Mahadeo Bania is competent."
The Administrator General took possession on 30-8-1953 of the house left by Mahadeo.
3 The appellant, Sardar Kartar Singh, appears to have negotiated with Musammat Phulkalia, her son Nath Ram and the sons of Duli for purchase of the disputed house, and they executed a registered agreement on 5-10-1953, to sell the disputed house to him for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. On the 19th November 1953, he obtained a lease of the said house from the Administrator General on a monthly rental of Rs. 497/-. On the 16th January, 1954. Phulkalia filed an application before the District Judge of Manbhum-Singhbhum for grant of a succession certificate in respect of Rs. 900.00 as arrears of rent due in respect of the disputed house from a
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
