Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 578
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
Bathgate and Company Ltd. and Ors.
versus
Reverend Hanok Ghosh and Ors.
T. No.183 of 2007
Decided on : 31 -7 -2007.
Tenants and occupants of a property owned by the Testatrix have no locus standi to question the appointment of an Administrator-De-Bonis-Non under the Indian Succession Act.
Headnote:
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - LOCUS STANDI - SECTION 232, 263 - TENANTS AND OCCUPANTS HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI TO QUESTION THE APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR DE-BONIS-NON UNDER THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, tenants and occupants of premises owned by the Testatrix, sought to discharge the Administrator-De-Bonis-Non of the estate, cancel a sale deed executed by him, and obtain other consequential reliefs. The petitioners claimed to have been paying rent to the Administrator-De-Bonis-Non. The Testatrix had bequeathed the property to the Assembly of God Church, and the Administrator-De-Bonis-Non, who was the Secretary of the Church, had sold the property to the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners, as tenants and occupants, had no locus standi to question the appointment of the Administrator-De-Bonis-Non under the Indian Succession Act. The court reasoned that only persons with an interest in the estate, such as legatees or heirs, could intervene in probate proceedings or question the appointment of an administrator.
Issues: 1. Whether tenants and occupants have locus standi to question the appointment of an Administrator-De-Bonis-Non under the Indian Succession Act? 2. Whether the substitution of the Administrator General as a party to an appeal under Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code affects the power of the probate Court to appoint an Administrator De-Bonis-Non?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Tenants and occupants have no right of inheritance in the estate of the Testatrix and, therefore, no locus standi to question the appointment of the Administrator-De-Bonis-Non. 2. The substitution of the Administrator General as a party to an appeal under Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code does not affect the power of the probate Court to appoint an Administrator De-Bonis-Non.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' application for revocation of grant with costs.
2. The petitioner No. 1, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner No. 2, a school run by one Smt. Shalini Hingorani, are tenants at the said premises. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 claim to have been paying rent to the credit of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner No. 3, an indigenous church is an occupant of a portion of the said premises and has filed a suit for declaration of its right of adverse possession of the area occupied by it.
3. At all material times, Premises No. 62/11, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta-700 019 was owned by the testatrix, who died on 7th May, 1969. The respondent Nos. 8 to 19 are all beneficiaries of the Will executed by the Testatrix on 7th September, 1968. The said Will has duly been probated.
4. In terms of the Will, about eight persons and/or organizations, named in the Will were to be paid the amounts specified in the Will from out of the estate of the testatrix. The residue of the Estate was bequeathed to the Assembly of God Church.
5. The testatrix had appointed Reverend Daniel Mark Buntain, Executor of her Will. After the death of Reverend Daniel Mark Buntain, the respondent No. 1, Reverend Hanok Ghosh was appointed Administrator De-Bonis-Non.
6. It appears that in compliance with the direction contained in the Will of the Testatrix, payments have been made to the Leper Mission, St. Paul's Mission, Oxford Mission Sisters, Blind School, Cheshire Homes, the step son of the Testatrix, his wife and two friends of the Testatrix.
7. The property being Premises No. 62/ 11, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta-700 019, referred to above, has vested in the Assembly of God Church. By a deed of sale dated 14th August, 2006 the respondent No. 1 has sold the said premises to the respondent Nos. 2 to 7.
8. Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in terms of Will of the Testatrix, Reverend Daniel Mark Buntain had been appointed Executor. The said Reverend Daniel Mark Buntain did not, during his lifetime, take any steps to sell the property for the purpose of distribution of the sale proceeds amongst the legatees mentioned in the Will.
9. Reverend Daniel Mark Buntain had, as Executor, filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner No. 1 in the District Court at Alipore. Against an order passed in the said suit, the petitioner No. 1 had appealed. While the said appeal was pending, Reverend Daniel Mark Buntain died on 30th June, 1990.
10. As there were no other Executors named in the Will and none of the legatees had applied for grant of letter of administration, the learned District Judge, at Alipore passed an order on 16th November, 1990 substituting the Administrator General, Government of West Bengal, as plaintiff in place of Reverend Daniel Mark Buntain.
11. Mr. Mitra argued that the Administrator General, Government of West Bengal, took over the asset of the Testatrix, as administrator and became solely entitled to represent the said property in terms of the Will of the Testatrix.
12. Mr. Mitra submitted that, suppressing the order dated 16th November, 1990, whereby the Administrator General, Government of West Bengal had been appointed Administrator of the Estate of the Testatrix, Assembly of God Church made an application in the Court of the learned District Delegate, Alipore for appointment of its Secretary being the respondent No. 1 as Administrator De-Bonis-Non.
13. By an order dated 23rd May, 1994 the learned District Delegate Alipore granted Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non
