Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. C. Mallick
GOODS OF MAHAMMAD BASHIR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Matter 2 Of 1961
Decided On : APRIL 10, 1961
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 263 - SECTION 278 - SECTION 283 - REVOCATION OF GRANT OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - CITATION OF PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE ESTATE - INTERPRETATION OF "INTEREST IN THE ESTATE" - DISTANT HEIRS - FAMILY OR RELATIVES - JUST CAUSE FOR REVOCATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Manjoor Ahmed, the nephew of the deceased Mahammad Bashir, filed an application for revocation of the grant of Letters of Administration to the estate of Mahammad Bashir, which was granted to his widow, Md. Nazimunnessa. The petitioner alleged that the grant was obtained surreptitiously by the widow, excluding him from his share in the estate, and that properties and businesses acquired with the deceased's funds were stated to belong exclusively to Mahammad Bashir's estate.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner, as a nephew of the deceased, did not have an "interest in the estate" as defined under Section 283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act, and therefore, his non-citation in the petition for grant did not amount to a just cause for revocation under Section 263 of the Act. The court further held that the petitioner's title to the estate, if any, was not affected by the grant of administration to the widow and that he would not be prejudiced by the grant.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, as a nephew of the deceased, had an "interest in the estate" entitling him to be cited in the petition for grant of Letters of Administration. 2. Whether the non-citation of the petitioner constituted a just cause for revocation of the grant under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act. 3. Whether the petitioner's title to the estate was affected by the grant of administration to the widow.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the phrase "interest in the estate" under Section 283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act as requiring a direct and present interest in the estate, not a remote or contingent interest. The petitioner, as a nephew, had no immediate or vested interest in the estate since the deceased was survived by his widow, son, and daughters, who were the legal heirs. 2. The court held that the non-citation of the petitioner, who had no interest in the estate, did not constitute a just cause for revocation of the grant under Section 263 of the Act. The court reasoned that the petitioner's title to the estate, if any, was not affected by the grant and that he would not be prejudiced by the grant since the widow had furnished security to the full extent of the value of the estate. 3. The court held that the petitioner's title to the estate, if any, was not affected by the grant of administration to the widow. The court stated that the petitioner's grievances, which related to the title to the estate and alleged fraudulent concealment of assets, could not be adjudicated in the revocation proceedings and would have to be agitated in a separate proceeding.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for revocation of the grant of Letters of Administration, holding that the petitioner had no interest in the estate entitling him to be cited and that the non-citation did not constitute a just cause for revocation.
( 1 ) THIS is an application for revocation of a grant of Letters of Administration to the Estate of Mahammad Bashir deceased. Mahammad Bashir died in March 1960 leaving him surviving his sole widow Md. Nazimunnessa, his only son Md, Riaz -- a boy of four and two daughters by a predeceased wife. Mahammad Bashir was the second son of Haji Din Mohammad who died some years prior to 1940. Haji Din Mohammad had another son Abdul Hakim who died in 1949. The petitioner, Manjoor Abmed, is the only son of Abdul Hakim. The Letters of Administration was granted to the widow by an order of this Court passed on January 20, 1961.
( 2 ) IT is alleged in the petition that Haji Din Mohammad was a very successful businessman who amassed a fortune. Prior to his death the late Haji made over to his two sons the sum of Rs. 12 lacs, 4000 gold mohurs and 1000 tolas of gold ornaments. The sum of Rs. 12 lacs given by the late Haji to his sons was utilised in purchasing various properties and also part of it was invested in various businesses. The petitioner lost his mother at a very early age and was greatly loved by his uncle Mahammad Bashir. It is alleged that he was reared up by Mahammad Bashir and his two wives as their own son. After the death of Mahammad Bashir however his widow Nazimunnessa came under the evil influence of certain interested parties and became a tool in their hands. Under such evil influence she took steps to defraud the petitioner of his share of the gold ornaments and mohurs and the said sum of Rs. 12 lacs and all properties and businesses acquired with the said sum. With such object of depriving the petitioner the grant was obtained by the widow surreptitiously behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance is that properties and businesses in which the petitioner has interest as the heir of his father and grandfather have been stated to exclusively belong to the estate of Mahammad Bashir. Reference is also made in the petition to a suit instituted in 1956 by one Mahammad Hanif against Mahammad Bashir and Nazimunnessa wherein it was contended that Haji Din Mohammad made a gift of Rs. 8 lacs to Mahammad Bashir out of which Rs. 25000/- was to be paid to the plaintiff in that suit for establishment of a school. It is contended that the suit was caused to be instituted by Mahammad Bashir to create a case of gift of Rs. 8 lacs made by the Haji to Mahammad Bashir. Mr. Santosh Kumar Basu the learned counsel appearing in support of the application submitted that a perusal of the records of the suit will show that the suit was a fraudulent one in its inception, continuance and termination. There was a mock fight. The proceedings were caused to be initiated by Mahammad Bashir to get a judicial recognition of this gift of Rs. 8 lacs by Haji Din Mohammad in favour of Mahammad Bashir.
( 3 ) I need hardly say that the real dispute between the parties cannot be determined and be the subject- matter of enquiry in these proceedings. It will have to be agitated in a different proceeding that may be instituted by either party. It will, therefore, not be proper for me to express my opinion one way or the other on questions raised in the petition which are outside the scope of this application. This simplifies the matter. In spits of the bulk of the papers placed before me, the points that require adjudication are limited to a very narrow compass. I am not called upon to consider and decide most of the facts raised in the papers as being irrelevant for the purpose of this application.
( 4 ) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this application and on which arguments have been addressed by learned counsel may be stated as under: (a) The grantee of the Letters of Administration is the sole widow of Mahammad Bashir and all persons entitled to inherit the estate of Mahammad Bashir either as sharer or as residuaries have been named in the petition for grant. The persons entitled to inherit the estate of Mahammad
AI
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
